By Matthew Casey/KJZZ
Maricopa County responded to a recent public records request from We The People AZ Alliance, in which they threatened legal action if the County did not furnish legal public records.
The Gateway Pundit has been informed that We The People AZ Alliance will now move forward with another Special Action lawsuit to obtain the lawfully requested records.
We The People AZ filed a separate Special Action Complaint to compel Maricopa County to produce public records relating to the inspection of all 2022 General Election Ballot Affidavit Envelopes, including mail-in, early voting, and late early ballot envelopes.
Kari Lake’s lawsuit will soon go back to trial on the critical issue of fraudulent signature verification; however, Maricopa County refuses to provide her legal team or We The People AZ with ballot affidavit signatures from the 2022 Election. See examples of the fraudulent signatures accepted by Maricopa County here.
On Monday, The Gateway Pundit reported that We The People AZ Alliance attorney Bryan Blehm, who also represents Kari Lake in her lawsuit against the stolen election, threatened another lawsuit against Maricopa County after Runbeck Election Services refused to comply with a lawful Public Records Request.
Runbeck’s liberal attorney, who also represented Katie Hobbs in numerous election challenges, arrogantly welcomed a lawsuit and threatened to sue for attorneys’ fees. He even included his pronouns in his email signature.
Their request is for the “exterior video of all loading dock locations, which clearly shows any items being delivered and/or “picked up” and “interior video of all loading dock locations/warehouse space which clearly shows any items) being delivered and/or picked up,” at Runbeck after Election Day.
This footage could shed light on a central question from Kari Lake’s lawsuit of why there are over 35,000 ballots unaccounted for. As The Gateway Pundit reported, Maricopa County still refuses to answer this question, as well as other questions about the missing ballot chain of custody documentation. According to a recent filing from Lake’s attorneys, Maricopa County Delivery Receipt forms “on Election Day, should have been (but were not) completed at MCTEC with the precise number of EDDB ballots sent to Runbeck.”
Runbeck, despite being a private company, is the custodian of these records and must comply with Arizona’s Public Records Law based on established case law in the Arizona Court of Appeals during a lawsuit by Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. against Cyber Ninjas and the Arizona Senate during the 2020 Election Audit. Therefore, We The People AZ Alliance can sue Runbeck and Maricopa County under the same pretenses that Cyber Ninjas was sued for denying a public records request.
Maricopa County confirms in its response to We The People AZ Alliance that “we are not the custodian of those records; therefore, the Maricopa County Recorder has no responsive records to your request.”
From the Arizona Court of Appeals:
To the extent Cyber Ninjas is in sole possession of audit- related public records because of its contract with the Senate, Cyber Ninjas has become the custodian of those records under [Arizona’s Public Records Law] the PRL. And as to those records, Cyber Ninjas has assumed the obligations the PRL assigns to a “custodian” of public records. Under the PRL, a person seeking publicrecords must make its request to the “custodian” of the records. A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(1). “Access to a public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond to a request for production of a public record.” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(E).
From Bryan Blehm’s letter threatening legal action against Maricopa County and Runbeck collectively:
To the extent [Runbeck] is in sole possession of [election]-related public records because of its contract with [Maricopa County], [Runbeck] has become the custodian of those records under the PRL. And as to those records, [Runbeck] has assumed the obligations the PRL assigns to a “custodian” of public records. Under the PRL, a person seeking public records must make its request to the “custodian” of the records. A.R.S. § 39-121.01 (D)(1). “Access to a public record is deemed denied if a custodian fails to promptly respond to a request for production of a public record.” A.R.S. § 39-121.01(E).
See the Maricopa County Recorder’s response below:
No comments:
Post a Comment