Kari Lake and Mark Finchem Appeal Lawsuit to Ban Electronic Voting Machines to US Supreme Court – Case Receives No Responsive Filings from ‘AZ SOS’ Adrian Fontes

Last month, former AZ gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and AZ Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem appealed their federal lawsuit seeking to ban electronic voting machines to the US Supreme Court with new allegations uncovered since the case was previously argued.

The new allegations, as reported by The Gateway Pundit, included failure by Maricopa County officials to conduct the mandated Logic and Accuracy testing, failure to only use certified software on Arizona’s voting machines, and critical encryption keys stored in plain-text that were found in accessible databases during the Arizona audit

Coincidentally, similar critical encryption keys were found in plain-text in open records requests in Georgia and New Mexico and identified in the Antrim County forensic image report in 2021 as part of Bailey v. Antrim Co.

In October 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, claiming that Lake and Finchem did not have standing and “failed to establish that a future injury was either imminent or substantially likely to occur.”

Notably, just three months later, in a Federal court, computer science expert J. Alex Halderman hacked a Dominion Voting System in mere seconds and in several different ways, using common items such as a ball-point pen, a $10 Smart Card from Amazon, and a $100 BashBunny device.  You can read The Gateway Pundit’s 3-part series on the Halderman Hacks:

Part 3: Full Scope of Dominion ICX Hack in Federal Court is FAR Worse than Just the BIC Pen Hack

On April 2nd, Lake/Finchem attorney Kurt Olsen filed another brief to the Supreme Court after respondent Adrian Fontes failed to file a necessary brief in opposition.  Fontes decided to waive any response to the brief as well as the Motion to Expedite.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 15.8, petitioners submit this supplemental brief regarding the ethical and legal implications of the respondents’ waiver of a brief in opposition (“BIO”) and their failure to respond to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite. Although petitioners reserve the right to move for monetary or nonmonetary sanctions under Rule 8.2, this supplemental brief focuses on the ethical and procedural issues related to respondents’ waiver of their BIOs.

In the lower courts, it was argued by defendants that because the voting machines were running certified software and logic and accuracy testing was performed, the risk of election interference was speculative.  Olsen argues in the most recent filing that:

“…respondents have a duty to correct prior false material evidence presented to the lower courts, on which those courts relied to find petitioners’ injuries too speculative for Article III.  The duty to correct expires when the litigation – including appeals or the time to appeal – expires.  Allowing respondents to run out the clock by waiving a response would put this Court’s imprimatur on respondents’ misconduct:

• If respondents previously knew their evidence was false, they committed fraud on the courts.
• If respondents learned of their evidence’s falsity from petitioners’ Motion to Expedite, respondents violated their duty of candor by waiving their BIOs (brief in opposition)

You can read the most recent filing from Tuesday evening here.