7 Burst results for "Arizona State Court"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"arizona state court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"And we had to have lynch in order to really cinch the deal. One thing I'm a little worried about is that if we rule in your favor in this case, that it will be giving other states essentially a road map for defining this court's criminal law decisions. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his sentence. Tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure, so John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer, Patrick hardesty in 2003, but it was in cruise's guilt but a sentence that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is an issue. So for decades, Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule, so then the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule you have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons case happened at the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the lynch case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole ineligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch after the use Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. I thought it was odd that the state was still arguing in its briefs that Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided by the court and justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney Joseph Kane field that she found that shocking and perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying, like lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really, we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumbing your nose at us. Justice Kagan is absolutely no disrespect was intended by that footnote to the court. And I apologize if that is the way it came across. Tell us about Arizona's arguments. So Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying it's just a state issue that in the first instance, it shouldn't even get to the U.S.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"arizona state court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio. In a death penalty case, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, creating a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, reminding just as Elena Kagan of the works of Kafka. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank, Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say Simmons always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? For decades, Arizona refused to follow Supreme Court precedent established in the 1994 Simmons case, which gave defendants facing the death penalty the right to tell juries that, if they spared them from the death penalty, they would never be eligible for parole. So in 2016, the Supreme Court specifically instructed Arizona to follow that law. But Arizona denied John Cruz that instruction at his trial, and then used a state procedural law to stop him from seeking reversal of his death sentence. Many of the justices seemed troubled by Arizona flouting the Supreme Court. Here's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Simmons made clear that this is what the law was. So many times Arizona said, we're not following it. And we had to have lynch in order to really cinch the deal. One thing I'm a little worried about is that if we rule in your favor in this case that it will be giving other states essentially a road map for defying this court's criminal law decisions. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his sentence. Tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer Patrick Harvey in 2003, but it was in cruise's guilt, but his sentence that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is at issue. So for decades, Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule, so then the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule you have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons case happened that the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the linch case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole ineligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch after the U.S. Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. I thought it was odd that the state was still arguing in its briefs that Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided by the court and justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney Joseph Kane field that she found that shocking and perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying, like lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumb and your nose at us. Justice Kagan is absolutely no disrespect was intended by that footnote to the court. And I apologize if that is the way it came across. Tell us about Arizona's arguments. So Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying it's just the state issue that in the first instance, it shouldn't even get to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule. And so there is this kind of threshold issue at the U.S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can even really take a look at this because it's a state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the type of federal issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments that the U.S.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"arizona state court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Building American technology like microchips. We learned the companies will follow if the federal government invests in the industries that we know we need and we're prepared to help you. That's the message I got from a large number of CEOs and the Fortune 500 companies. So the chips and science act invest $52 billion, supercharge our efforts to make semiconductors here in America. The president says the U.S. can't rely on supply chains from other countries, including China. The G 7 is warning Russia that use of chemical biological or nuclear weapons would be met with severe consequences. The international group released a statement Friday saying Russia's threats of nuclear warfare are unacceptable. The G 7 also conducted an investigation into Russia's claims that Ukraine is planning on launching a dirty bomb and found those allegations to be baseless. The man accused of attacking House speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband will have a preliminary hearing next month. I'm Brad seger. This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. In a death penalty case, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, creating a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, reminding just Elena Kagan of the works of Kafka. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank, Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say sim is always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? For decades, Arizona refused to follow Supreme Court precedent established in the 1994 Simmons case, which gave defendants facing the death penalty the right to tell juries that if they spared them from the death penalty, they would never be eligible for parole. So in 2016, the Supreme Court specifically instructed Arizona to follow that law. But Arizona denied John Cruz that instruction at his trial, and then used a state procedural law to stop him from seeking reversal of his death sentence. Many of the justices seem troubled by Arizona flouting the Supreme Court. Here's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Simmons made clear that this is what the law was. So many times Arizona said we're not following it. And we had to have lynch in order to really cinch the deal. One thing I'm a little worried about is that if we rule in your favor in this case that it will be giving other states essentially a road map for defying this court's criminal law decisions. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his sentence. Tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer, Patrick hardesty in 2003, but it wasn't Cruz's guilt but a sentence that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is an issue. So for decades, Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule, so then the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule you have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons case happened at the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the lynch case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole ineligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch after the use Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this. State procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise, he can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. I thought it was odd that the state was still arguing in its briefs that Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided by the court and justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney Joseph Cain field that she found that shocking and perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying like lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumb and your nose at us. Justice Kagan is absolutely no disrespect
Bloomberg Radio New York
"arizona state court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"I'm Brian shook. This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. In a death penalty case, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, creating a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, reminding just Elena Kagan of the works of Kafka. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say Simmons always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? For decades, Arizona refused to follow Supreme Court precedent established in the 1994 Simmons case, which gave defendants facing the death penalty the right to tell juries that if they spared them from the death penalty, they would never be eligible for parole. So in 2016 the Supreme Court specifically instructed Arizona to follow that law. But Arizona denied John Cruz that instruction at his trial and then used a state procedural law to stop him from seeking reversal of his death sentence. Many of the justices seemed troubled by Arizona flouting the Supreme Court. Here's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Simmons made clear that this is what the law was. So many times Arizona said we're not following it. And we had to have lynch in order to really cinch the deal. One thing I'm a little worried about is that if we rule in your favor in this case, that it will be giving other states essentially a road map. For defying this court's criminal law decisions. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his sentence. Tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer, Patrick hardesty in 2003, but it was in cruise's guilt, but his sentence that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole. He was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is an issue. So for decades, Arizona refuses to follow that Supreme Court rule, so then the court basically tells Arizona directly, this is the rule you have to follow it. That's right. So the Simmons case happened at the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that, but then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the linch case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole and eligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch after the U Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case, and then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. I thought it was odd that the state was still arguing in its briefs that Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided by the court and justice Kagan told Arizona's attorney Joseph Kane field that she found that shocking and perhaps a bit insulting. In this case, you're still saying, like, lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really, we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumbing your nose at us. Justice Kagan is absolutely no
Bloomberg Radio New York
"arizona state court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Death penalty case at the Supreme Court, Arizona did end runs around Supreme Court precedent, leaving a procedural maze that blocked a death row inmate's relief at every turn, leading justice Elena Kagan to compare it to the works of Kafka. Mister canfield, that bad faith or not. I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point blank, Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona court say sim is always applied in California. I mean, tells you when, as I lose, whatever that expression is, I mean, how can you run a railroad that way? Arizona ignored Supreme Court precedent set in the Simmons case in 1994, which gave defendants the right to tell juries that their ineligible to get parole if their sentence to life in prison instead of death. And then Arizona ignored a case in 2016, the lynch case in which the Supreme Court said the state had to apply Simmons. An innate on Arizona's death row is asking for a new trial because he wasn't allowed to tell the jury that he couldn't get parole. Joining me is Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. This appeal is not about the defendant's guilt, but about his scent and tell us a little about the case and what happened during the penalty phase. Sure. So John Cruz was convicted in Arizona state court, a first degree murder for shooting Tucson police officer Patrick Harvey in 2003, but it wasn't cruise as guilt by defendants that prompted the issue at the Supreme Court. So at the sentencing phase, Cruz wanted the jury to know that he would have been ineligible for parole if he was sentenced to life instead of death. And that actually wound up being a really important issue because we know that the jury foreman actually later said that they are looking for a reason to be lenient, but Arizona didn't allow that at the time. And that was despite an earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1994 called Simmons, which said that defendants have the right to inform juries of their parole ineligibility in that situation when their future danger is an issue. Arizona just refuses, they are not following this Supreme Court case, Simmons, and then in another case, the Supreme Court says basically you have to follow Simmons. That's right. So the Simmons case happened at the Supreme Court in 1994. Cruz was prosecuted in Arizona after that. But then there was an Arizona case that went to the Supreme Court after Cruz was sentenced called lynch against Arizona in 2016 where the U.S. Supreme Court basically told Arizona you have to apply this precedent simmonds. And so Cruz had previously raised a challenge before the lich case trying to argue that he should have been able to tell the jury about his parole and eligibility status based on Simmons, then after lynch, after the use of Supreme Court told Arizona, you have to apply our precedent, Cruz tried again, but he was rejected again in state court, and that's what prompted this U.S. Supreme Court appeal this kind of ping ponging back and forth and cruises repeated attempts and repeated rejections to try and get the benefit of this U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the sentence case. So that's why justice Elena Kagan said Kafka would have loved this case. Exactly. So the way she put it, she says, Costco would have loved this because Cruz loses his Simmons claim on direct appeal in the first instance before the lynch case. And then he tries again and the reason he loses according to the state is because no, Simmons is actually always applied. It was just that lynch told Arizona that it had to then apply the law. So it wasn't what's called a significant change in the law, according to Arizona, and that's super important for this case because it all comes down to this state procedural rule, which says that on post conviction, like what Cruz was trying to raise. He can only get the benefit if there was a significant change in law. And according to Arizona, the lynch holding wasn't a significant change. What was, I thought, odd, the state was still arguing in its briefs that those cases Simmons and lynch were wrongly decided. Here's justice Kagan. And then in this case, you're still saying my lynch is wrongly decided Simmons is wrongly decided we can't really we just really hate all this stuff. It sounds like your thumb and your nose at us. What did Arizona say about that? So Arizona takes this sort of hyper technical reading. They're saying it's just a state issue that in the first instance, it shouldn't even get to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's a state court dealing with the state procedural rule. And so there is this kind of threshold issue at the U.S. Supreme Court of whether the justices can even really take a look at this because it's a state issue. And so there's this initial argument of whether we're even getting into the territory of dealing with the type of federal issue that the U.S. Supreme Court can grapple with. And so that's one of Arizona's arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court really shouldn't even be getting involved. That's part of it. Another part is, according to this they procedural rule, they're saying it wasn't a significant change in law, despite how much that might seem to fly in the face of common sense as justice Kagan was pointing out during the argument. They're saying it's not a significant change. It's just now an application of the law. And so that's what brings up this situation where Kagan is pointing out that Cruz is blocked in this procedural maze, no matter in which direction he turns. Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin and we'll talk about how the Supreme Court may come out in this case. I'm June grass when you're listening to Bloomberg
600 WREC
"arizona state court" Discussed on 600 WREC
"Unemployment benefits? Had any effect on diminishing a return to work in some categories? No, nothing measurable, anyway. 809 41. Sean, If you wanna be a part of the program, all right, so There is out in Maricopa County in Arizona. So anyway, the the county's attorney's office informed the former Republican secretary of state out there, Ken Bennett of a decision this week that they are refusing in order to turn over routers or router images. Whatever the hell, they are two election auditors defying a judge's ruling. Okay. What gives them the right to defy a judge's ruling because the county was told late last month while delivering subpoenaed election materials to the state Senate's custody that delivering routers or images. Posed a significant security risk to law enforcement data utilized by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office as well as numerous federal agencies. I thought they're handing it over to elected officials and I would assume that they have the right to be present the whole time. I don't know we'll find out in a second, but Um, anyway, spokesperson for the county told the epic Times in an email that its technology professionals determine the information contained in the routers could be used his blueprints to Intercept sensitive county data. Maricopa County is more than 50 County departments, etcetera etcetera anyway, so the withheld routers are just the latest of what our syriza of many roadblocks. To the Arizona Senate attempted audit of the 2020 election, which has now been going on for some time. So what's going on out there? I don't know. But Kelli Ward should know. She's the chairwoman of the Arizona GOP. Okay, So my understanding is the court ordered that they be turned over and then now defying a court order. Why do I believe in life of I defied a court order that I be in trouble. Sean, you are exactly right. These Merrick, Opa County bureaucrats, and unfortunately some elected Republicans are defying the court. The court has ruled several times that the Arizona State Senate and the Legislature as a whole has the The right the authority to look at this data, and now they are just blatantly ignoring the law. This is a Democrat tactic that's been used again and again and again, and I could tell you the attorneys are making making a lot of bucks out here on this election, but we're willing to spend whatever it takes. Make sure that America's audit is completed. What is this report that came out? I believe of ABC 15 in Phoenix that the Biden Department of Justice is going to get involved in some capacity here as is anything moved on that front. Well, the Democrats and our secretary of state Katie Hobbs, who called Trump supporters neo Nazis in case people out there don't know She's trying to involve the Justice Department B. I mean, I think it's a very politicized Justice Department. At this point, she's also involving the Brennan Center for Justice and the so called Democracy Project. Those are all groups that are radical left wing social justice warriors trying to change the very fabric of our nation. And so her latest attempt to overcome the Arizona State Court decision that allows this audit to proceed is to try to bring in the DOJ. And I will tell you, the federal government has absolutely no authority to interfere in Arizona elections or in this audit. It has nothing to do with the violations of minority rights that they're asserting or potential lack of security. It really has everything to do with Democrat abuse of power and federal government intrusion in our elections here in our great state of Arizona. I'd like to have an answer to this question. If this is a genuine concern that blueprints can on the routers, whatever the hell they are, I don't even know Can intercept sensitive townie data. Why don't they just hire law enforcement and professionals to make sure something like that does not happen? Exactly. And I can tell you that the ballots and the procedures that are happening at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum under the direction of the Arizona State Senate and under the contractors that they hired who are very professional world class. People who understand how to get this job done are 20 times more secure than what they are at Maricopa County. In the Coliseum. There are 19 armed guards. There are security cameras running around the clock, and there is public access to nine different cameras showing the audit as it's in process. None of that happens at the mirror account Copa County Tabulation center so on every procedure that they're doing, Shawn is done with the utmost professionalism and with the knowledge that there is sensitive information on everything that they're looking at. There is no voter information. There's no way to expose who voters are. But that information inside those routers is important for these auditors to be able to see so that they can report to the state Senate and we can change our legislation is needed, and we can report anything that might be criminal behavior to those are attorney general and to the Congress. Look to me. It's just a simple matter of law and order there. There are plenty of laws that I don't like. For example, in the state of New York, um I've had to a number of times. Modify, you know, firearms done by professional dealers to follow the letter of the law completely. You know, I wouldn't dare think of violating the law because I think that if I violate the law, they love to put me in jail. Probably and throw away the key. And maybe you can sneak in with a cake and a file that maybe I'll get out somehow. But in all seriousness, I've got to imagine that considering the court now is waiting on this several times that they're not gonna be able to fire court order. Much longer. Am I right about that, or are they? Well, I certainly I certainly hope not. But the audit is ongoing, even as we speak so nothing that the Democrats are trying is stopping the audit. The full hand count of 2.1 million ballots is going on right now. The audit of the ballots themselves to be sure that every ballot that was cast is actually a legitimate ballot is ongoing, as well as the evaluation of what they're able to see from the information so far, now Maricopa County did also reveal They don't have the secondary password to get into the administration part of those machines and they are fighting not to have to find it to give to the auditors that I think is something that exposes that. The county has no control over the elections whatsoever. They've completely outsourced it without any right toe oversight, and that should throw the the certification of the election into question. In and of itself. All right. We appreciate the update. Kelli Ward, chairman Arizona GOP will continue to watch the story. I'd find it fascinating that you know liberals can get away with pretty much everything in conservatives go to jail for Russ, spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate it. 809 for one. Sean, if you wanna be a part of the program Aaron Nevada, Next Sean Hannity show Kate on radio. What's going on? Sean. First of all, thank you so much for taking my call. Um, it's honor to talk to you. I've listened to you since I was a teenager in the back of my car. But I only want to ask how I don't even want to ask how old you are. Now. It's gonna make me feel really old man on man. Well, thank you for being with us. Thanks for calling. And thanks for listening all this time..
The Patriot AM 1150
"arizona state court" Discussed on The Patriot AM 1150
"Any effect on diminishing return to work in some categories? No, nothing measurable, anyway. 809 41. Sean, If you wanna be a part of the program, all right, so There is out in Maricopa County in Arizona. So anyway, the the county's attorney's office informed the former Republican secretary of state out there, Ken Bennett of a decision this week that they are refusing in order to turn over routers or router images. Whatever the hell, they are two election auditors defying a judge's ruling. Okay. What gives them the right to defy a judge's ruling because the county was told late last month while delivering subpoenaed election materials to the state Senate's custody that delivering routers or images. Posed a significant security risk to law enforcement data utilized by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office as well as numerous federal agencies. I thought they're handing it over to elected officials and I would assume that they have the right to be present the whole time. I don't know we'll find out in a second, but Um, anyway, spokesperson for the county told the epic Times in an email that its technology professionals determine the information contained in the routers could be used his blueprints to Intercept sensitive county data. Maricopa County is more than 50 County departments, etcetera etcetera anyway, so the withheld routers are just the latest of what our syriza of many roadblocks. To the Arizona Senate attempted audit of the 2020 election, which has now been going on for some time. So what's going on out there? I don't know. But Kelli Ward should know. She's the chairwoman of the Arizona GOP. Okay, So my understanding is the court ordered that they be turned over and then now defying a court order Why do I believe in life of I defied a court order that I be in trouble. Sean, you are exactly right. These Merrick, Opa County bureaucrats, and unfortunately some elected Republicans are defying the court. The court has ruled several times that the Arizona State Senate and the Legislature as a whole has the The right the authority to look at this data, and now they are just blatantly ignoring the law. This is a Democrat tactic that's been used again and again and again, and I could tell you the attorneys are making making a lot of bucks out here on this election, but we're willing to spend whatever it takes. To make sure that America's audit is completed. What is this report that came out? I believe of ABC 15 in Phoenix that the Biden Department of Justice is going to get involved in some capacity here as is anything moved on that front. Well, the Democrats and and our secretary of state Katie Hobbs, who called Trump supporters neo Nazis in case people out there don't know She's trying to involve the Justice Department. The I mean, I think it's a very politicized Justice Department. At this point, she's also involving the Brennan Center for Justice and the so called Democracy Project. Those are all groups that are radical left wing social justice warriors trying to change the very fabric of our nation. And so her latest attempt to overcome the Arizona State Court decision that allows this audit to proceed is to try to bring in the DOJ. And I will tell you, the federal government has absolutely no authority to interfere in Arizona elections or in this audit. It has nothing to do with the violations of minority rights that they're asserting or potential lack of security. It really has everything to do with Democrat abuse of power. And federal government intrusion in our elections here in our great state of Arizona. I'd like to have an answer to this question. If this is a genuine concern that that blueprints can on the routers, whatever the hell they are, I don't even know Can intercept sensitive county data. Why don't they just hire law enforcement and professionals to make sure something like that does not happen? Exactly. And I can tell you that the ballots and the procedures that are happening at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum under the direction of the Arizona State Senate and under the contractors that they hired. You are very professional world class. People who understand how to get this job done are 20 times more secure than what they are at Maricopa County in the Coliseum. There are 19 armed guards. There are security cameras running around the clock, and there is public access to nine different cameras showing the audit as it's in process. None of that happens at the mirror account Copa County Tabulation center so on every procedure that they're doing, Shawn is done with the utmost professionalism and with the knowledge that there is sensitive information on everything that they're looking at. There is no voter information. There's no way to expose who voters are. But that information inside those routers is important for these auditors to be able to see so that they can report to the state Senate and we can change our legislation is needed, and we can report anything that might be criminal behavior to those are attorney general and to the Congress. Look to me. It's just a simple matter of law and order there. There are plenty of laws that I don't like. For example, in the state of New York, um I've had to a number of times. Modify, you know, firearms done by professional dealers to follow the letter of the law completely. You know, I wouldn't dare think of violating the law because I think that if I violate the law they loved to put me in jail. Probably and throw away the key. And maybe you can sneak in with a cake and a file that maybe I'll get out somehow. But in all seriousness, I've got to imagine that considering the court now is waiting on this several times that they're not going to be able to fire court order for much longer. Am I right about that, or are they? Well, I certainly I certainly hope not. But the audit is ongoing, even as we speak so nothing that the Democrats are trying is stopping the audit. The full hand count of 2.1 million ballots is going on right now. The audit of the ballots themselves to be sure that every ballot that was cast is actually a legitimate ballot is ongoing, as well as the evaluation of what they're able to see from the information so far, now Maricopa County did also reveal They don't have the secondary password to get into the administration part of those machines and they are fighting not to have to find it to give to the auditors that I think is something that exposes that..