FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Presentation of the Maricopa County Election Audit

WHAT: Members of the Maricopa County election audit team will present their findings to the Senate President and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This a presentation only and will not include public comment or
questions.

WHO:
Senate President Karen Fann
Judiciary Chair Senator Warren Petersen
Doug Logan, Cyber Ninjas CEO
Ben Cotton, CyFIR Founder
Ken Bennett, Senate Audit Liaison
Randy Pullen, Senate Audit Spokesperson
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai

WHEN: Friday, September 24, 1 p.m. Arizona time, 4 p.m. EDT

WHERE: State Senate Chambers
Live streamed at:

https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2021091005

~~~

Via AZ Senate GOP

Ken Bennett Provides a Table of Contents for the AZ Audit Report Presentation on Friday

Senate audit liaison Ken Bennett joined John Fredericks to offer a breakdown of Friday’s audit report reveal. He added that contrary to some social media reports, “nothing will be held back.”

• Doug Logan will present on behalf of the Cyber Ninjas

• Ben Cotton will discuss his findings from the machine examination

• An “individual” (possibly Dr. Shiva) will present the conclusions from the the ballot envelope signature review

• Randy Pullen will discuss the results of the Senate’s 3rd ballot count

• Ken Bennett will offer a brief report about where Maricopa County failed to comply with state statutes and election procedures

Source🤠 @TheStormHasArrived17🙏

Learn more 🔎🧵 Link to watch Friday audit report hearing

BREAKING PART 2: FDA Official: ‘Blow Darting African Americans Is Where We’re Going...Just Shoot Everyone’

'Nazi Germany Registry' of Unvaccinated Americans: “Think About It Like The Jewish Star”

'Go Door-To-Door & Stab Everyone'

#ExposeFDA

DISTRIBUTE THIS VIDEO BY PROXY ON TWITTER ASAP - CLICK HERE: https://ctt.ec/cbn_7

I take apologies in written form, verbal, recorded in voice mail, or by broadcast. Those who took umbrage with my swastica post to illuminate the parallels between early Nazi Germany and now are welcome to explain this young man's horrific and disgusting rant and then tell me I was wrong.

https://youtu.be/4oWWcqGk1m4

NEW: Twitter suspends Arizona Senator Kelly Townsend for thanking Project Veritas for their latest report.

You can follow her on telegram❗
https://t.iss.one/KellyTownsend

@KanekoaTheGreat

Looks like Deer Valley School Board member, Kim Fisher, is owed an apology as well.

https://twitter.com/bullfrog35/status/1440891084758863875?s=19

#ExposeFDA

Now we know why Bill Gates is buying up farmland.

Vaccines in your salad? Scientists growing medicine-filled plants to replace injections - Study Finds

https://www.studyfinds.org/vaccines-salad-growing-plants/

We have at least two opinions that have advised us regarding the process of how Arizona would decertify a Presidential election. Neither of these two opinions seem promising. Nevertheless, if I were Donald Trump, I would certainly bring to court a challenge after an audit if it showed wrongdoing. The statutes and laws in place right now seem to not allow any decertification at this point, however, (not speaking as an attorney) I would imagine that a challenge in court should be attempted, if warranted. I do not see a current legal mechanism legally for legislators to just simply decertify. I don't think that would survive a court challenge based on current statute. In my thinking, I believe it would have to be the candidate who feels with new information that they were wrong, to bring this to court.
Please see the opinion below and tell me what you think:



ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMO

QUESTION
Is there a mechanism to decertify a presidential election?

ANSWER
Federal law provides for determination of election challenges regarding
presidential electors in each state pursuant to state law. In Arizona, the contest of an
election of presidential electors must be instituted within five days after completion of the
election canvass. When Congress reviews the votes submitted by presidential electors, members of the House of Representatives and Senate may object to the votes. A vote
may be rejected on the concurrent vote of both houses. There is no other provision in the United States Constitution or federal law to challenge a presidential election.

DISCUSSION
In regard to presidential electors, the United States Constitution provides:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
Under this authority, the legislature may select the presidential electors, it may
allow the voters to select the presidential electors and it may change how the electors are
selected. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104
(2000). However, the Constitution provides that Congress determines the time of choosing presidential electors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The Court in McPherson 2
and Bush did not address this congressional authority because it was not an issue in those
cases. Under its constitutional authority, Congress has directed that "[t]he electors of
President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after
the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President." 3 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1.

The Arizona legislature has prescribed the method of appointment of presidential
electors for this state by enacting several statutes, including Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 16-212, which provides in part:

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956,
and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass
containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of
this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.
The statutes also provide that the chair of the state committee of each political party that qualifies for a column on the general election ballot must appoint the candidates for the office of presidential elector for the respective political party. A.R.S. section 16-344.

Federal law addresses the determination of controversies as to the appointment of
presidential electors. 3 U.S.C. §

5. The so-called safe harbor provision states:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any
controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and
such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

3 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added).
This section states that if a state has in place before an election is held a law that
prescribes procedures to resolve any controversy about the election, the resolution made 3 pursuant to these procedures will govern in the counting of electoral votes if the
resolution is made at least six days before the presidential electors meet. While this
section is not exclusive, it clearly expresses the congressional preference for
controversies to be determined through processes established by law. The legislature has enacted procedures to contest elections in A.R.S. title 16, chapter 4, article 13.

An elector may contest a statewide election for a variety of reasons, including misconduct by election officials, counting illegal votes and erroneous counting of votes.
A.R.S. section 16-672. A contest is made by filing an action in superior court. Id. A person contesting a statewide election must file a statement that identifies the parties and the reasons for the contest with the court within five days after completion of the canvass of the election.
A.R.S. section 16-673.

So, in Arizona, an elector may contest the election of presidential electors according to the law in effect at the time of the election. Under the current law, a contest must be filed within five days after the completion of the canvas of the election at which presidential electors are selected. If the determination of the court concerning the challenge is made at least six days before the meeting of the presidential electors, the determination of the court is conclusive.
Federal law does provide that members of Congress may object to a state's
submission of presidential electors at the time of counting electoral votes. 3 U.S.C. §

15. Each objection must be signed by at least one member of the House of
Representatives and one member of the Senate. Id. The House and the Senate
separately consider the objections to a state's submission of presidential electors. Id.

The determination of each house is limited because:
[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified
to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the
vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
Id.
This section allows Congress to reject votes submitted by presidential electors from a state based on irregularities in the selection of the presidential
electors or in the voting by the electors. However, in making this determination,
Congress is bound by any decision made in an election challenge that complies
with 3 U.S.C. § 5.
We have not found any other provision of the United States Constitution or

federal law that would allow for a challenge to or decertification of a presidential
election. The only court case that we found addressing this issue agrees with this
conclusion. The federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia held: Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court decertifying the November
3, 2020, election results. . . . 3 U.S.C. § 15 provides the only process by
which the electoral votes are to be counted and potentially challenged. . .
. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statute or case that provides for any mode
of challenging electoral votes already certified and counted by the
Electoral College outside the congressional method outlined in 3 U.S.C. §
15. Thus, this Court finds no grounds upon which to independently order
the decertification of Georgia's election results.
Trump v. Kemp, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1335–36 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (emphasis added and
footnote omitted).
Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this issue.
cc: Michael Hans

PVUSD Board Meeting TONIGHT. Agenda here

🚨ALL HANDS ON DECK TO SAVE ARIZONA'S ELECTIONS!

Secretary Katie Hobbs is unilaterally trying to override the Legislature and the Courts by creating fake law in the Election Manual in conflict to our existing laws.

If we don't STOP HOBBS her fraudulent fake laws will govern our next election! We must stop her!

👉 Go to EZAZ.org for instructions and links as to how to contact Attorney General Brnovich.

Please politely but firmly ask for a JOINT LEGISLATIVE Election Committee to review Hobbs Election Manual and provide a recommendation to take out her attempts to legalize an open door for fraud!

🔗Follow us @ https://t.iss.one/ezazpie

MORE LEAKED AUDIO:

“Steve Chucri RIPS Clint Hickman – “He is a LIAR… CLINT IS TOO DEFENSIVE OF DOMINION”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/leaked-audio-steve-chucri-rips-clint-hickman-liar-clint-defensive-dominion-audio/

SUBSCRIBE: @WILFmoseder
https://nickmoseder.locals.com

Our elected leaders must ensure accurate reporting of student absences from school. See my statement ☝️- Shiry Sapir (Candidate for AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction)