AUG 27, 2024
Prescott, AZ August 27, 2024… Most people have no idea what Project 65 is, let alone their insidious mission to undermine the American electoral process through “lawfare.” In the fullness of time, with the voluminous evidence accumulated, these enemies of the Constitutional protection of the “Equal Protection” clause (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the Constitution of the United States, have been taken to the woodshed in Arizona.
These enemies of political discourse and free and fair elections claim to be “defenders of democracy,” yet they seek to stip individuals they don’t agree with of their civil rights. Do you think that sounds familiar to you? Of course, it does, they are part of the broader PSYOP that has been at work trying to convince America —70% of who do not believe the 2020 election was legitimate— that President Donald J Trump’s lawyers were engaged in frivolous lawsuits to overturn an other=wise free and fair election.
Democrats used the term throughout the election of 2022, “defend democracy,” yet they did everything possible to shred the Constitution and the democratically elected constitutional republic that is the United States. Molly Ball, a writer for Time Magazine even bragged about, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” A more accurate title might have been, “The Secret Plan to Carry Out a Coup d’é·tat Against an American President.”
Who is Project 65?
Taken from their own ABOUT Page “In the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump-allied lawyers filed 65 lawsuits across the country to overturn the legitimate election results. Finding the assertions bogus and riddled with false statements, Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges uniformly dismissed the lawsuits. But success in the courtroom was not the only objective. Instead, the lawyers bringing these claims knew they were a key component of a larger effort to discredit the 2020 presidential election – and all future elections in which their preferred candidate lost.
The 65 Project is a bi-partisan effort to protect democracy and preserve the rule of law by deterring future attacks on our electoral system. We are holding accountable Big Lie Lawyers who bring fraudulent and malicious lawsuits to overturn legitimate election results, and working with bar associations to revitalize the disciplinary process so that lawyers, including public officials, who subvert democracy will be punished.
Lawyers take an oath to stand as officers of the court, bound by a code of conduct and ethical requirements that do not apply to the public more broadly. They cannot uphold that duty while lying to the court or the public about the factual grounds for phony claims. The 65 Project will work to hold accountable the lawyers who raise fraudulent claims to overturn legitimate elections results, while also creating a rule-based system to prevent future attempts and to strengthen the mechanisms for accountability and deterrence.”
The Arizona Bar has been coopted…
Attorneys for Kari Lake and Mark Finchem (yours truly) in a U.S. District Court case Filed in April 2022 demanding the cessation of the use of machine tabulation of ballots to count votes until or unless the software driving those machines could be inspected and confirmed to not have nefarious code that would flip votes, were charged by the Arizona Bar for ethics violations because they brought the action before the U.S. District Court. We predicted that the 2022 election in Arizona would be impacted and it was.
Moreover, the inspection of the code after the fact confirmed our deepest fears, that the altered code was also used for the 2020 election that Donald J. Trump allegedly lost. Furthermore, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Election Director lied to the court when they claimed the machines and the code that drives them were both tested and Election Assistance Commission (EAC) certified. Once altered with unapproved software, the EAC certification is no longer valid.
The attorneys, Andrew Parker and Kurt Olson were wrongfully targeted for disbarment because they sounded the siren song of election interference. But Federal District Judge John Tuchi (a Barak Obama appointee) dismissed the case on standing. Ok wait a minute, if anyone has standing isn’t it the candidates sounding the alarm of the potential for a tainted race? According to the Bar complaint…
At issue in these proceedings is the Complaint the State Bar of Arizona filed against Respondents Andrew D. Parker and Kurt B. Olsen on January 11, 2024. 1 The Complaint alleges Respondents violated the following ethical rules (“ERs”) found in Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona: ER 1.1 (competence), ER 1.3 (diligence), ER 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), ER 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and ER 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Parker and Olson skillfully argued, This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines in the State of Arizona in the upcoming 2022 Midterm Election, slated to be held on November 8, 2022 (the “Midterm Election”), unless and until the electronic voting system is made open to the public and subjected to scientific analysis by objective experts to determine whether it is secure from manipulation or intrusion. The machine companies have consistently refused to do this.
Plaintiffs have a constitutional and statutory right to have their ballots, and all ballots cast together with theirs, counted accurately and transparently, so that only legal votes determine the winners of each office contested in the Midterm Election. Electronic voting machines cannot be deemed reliably secure and do not meet the constitutional and statutory mandates to guarantee a free and fair election. The use of untested and unverified electronic voting machines violates the rights of Plaintiffs and their fellow voters and office seekers, and it undermines public confidence in the validity of election results. Just as the government cannot insist on “trust me,” so too, private companies that perform governmental functions, such as vote counting cannot be trusted without verification.
It is important to note that this Complaint is not an attempt to undo the past. Most specifically, it is not about undoing the 2020 presidential election. It is only about the future – about upcoming elections that will employ voting machines designed and run by private companies, performing a crucial governmental function, that refuse to disclose their software and system components and subject them to neutral expert evaluation. It raises the profound constitutional issue: can government avoid its obligation of democratic transparency and accountability by delegating a critical governmental function to private companies?
Conclusion in the Parker & Olson Case…
The Disbarment Court ruled… “Retrospective scrutiny of any complex litigation may reveal some measure of imprecision, legal arguments fairly characterized as long shots, puffery in advocacy, and reliance on authorities that are distinguishable in some respects. Such is the case here. Based on the hearing evidence, the only somewhat close call relates to the MPI and ER 3.1. But for the hearing panel to conclude that objective attorneys would not have acted as Respondents did in that context, significantly more evidence would be necessary particularly given the State Bar’s high burden of proof, Respondents’ strong substantive defense, and the safe harbor afforded fairly debatable and long shot claims advanced in litigation.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED dismissing the Complaint filed against Andrew D. Parker and Kurt B. Olsen on January 11, 2024.”
But wait there is more good news…
In the appeal of sanctions against Republican Nominee for Arizona Secretary of State Mark Finchem, where the Arizona Court of Appeals clearly and deliberately disregarded jurisprudence of just a month prior, and in a court composed of almost the same panel of Appellate Court judges, that sanctions are not to be used in election contest cases except under exceedingly rare conditions —AZGOP v. Richer, the Arizona Supreme ordered the Appeals Court to reconsider their opinion. That is extremely strong language that indicates the Supremes have had enough of the lower court’s inept handling of election cases and their naked partisan political shenanigans.
Moreover, the highest court already overturned the Appeals Court on the matter, and they must know that there are judges at risk of impeachment if they don’t begin acting as neutral arbiters of political contest cases. We shall see what happens in the Appeals Court, can they take a hint?
The point here is that the courts must remain a venue for settling disputes with an unbiased judge or jury. Interference by judges like Hanna, Thomson, and Julian (the three election case judges that handled the Maricopa County sh*t show demonstrated clear bias, to the point of animus, toward the contestants who called out the irredeemably compromised [s]elections and thus participated in the massive coverup of election fraud. Now it will be up to the Legislature to rein in these rogue actors, and to hold The Bar accountable for its extreme left movemen