Within hours of being sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court for repeatedly making “unequivocally false” statements to the Justices, Kari Lake’s attorneys informed Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson that they are “contemplating” a new lawsuit to allege her constitutional rights have been violated, and that they may re-challenge Maricopa County’s logic and accuracy testing.
Judge Thompson has set aside 30 minutes for a status conference this coming Monday afternoon (2pm).
Lake’s attorneys also indicated that they will try to consolidate the long-running Election Contest case with a recently-filed public records lawsuit to get the early-voting ballot envelopes from the County.
These three possible actions to extend Lake’s legal battle to claim victory in last November’s gubernatorial election were set forth in the Motion for a Status Conference.
“Plaintiff-Contestant Lake is also contemplating a motion to reconsider the dismissal of Count IV (logic-and-accuracy testing) under ARCP 60(b)(3) within the same likely time frame as the proceedings remand. Indeed, she may also bring a new and separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law to press her federal and Arizona constitutional claims.” (The U.S. Code section cited deals with claims that constitutional rights have been violated.)
The public records request lawsuit was filed on April 25 and has been assigned to Judge Michael Gordon. No effort to expedite that case has been made, and an effort to consolidate a case contending that Maricopa County must turn over voters’ signatures and envelopes with an Election Contest would be unusual. Even though the cases are related by subject, the Election Contest statutes are very limiting in what may occur.
Yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court sanctioned Lake’s attorneys for their repeated false statements to the state’s highest court that it was an “undisputed fact” that more than 35,000 ballots had been injected into Maricopa County’s election tallies.
While noting that Lake’s alleged support for the ballot injection claim are two exhibits – “one exhibit that included an estimate… and a different exhibit showing a precise count” – Chief Justice Robert Brutinel focused on the attorneys’ statements that the injenction was undisputed. “More to the point here, this was certainly disputed by the Respondents. The representation that this was an “undisputed fact” is therefore unequivocally false.” (He then footnoted part of the ethics rules stating “the lawyer must not mislead the tribunal by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”)
The Supreme Court thus decided not to sanction Lake’s attorneys by forcing them to repay the defendants’ legal fees, but by the “extraordinary remedy” of paying a fine of $2,000 to the Court. There was no dissent.