Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Arizona judge rules common practice of validating ballot signatures illegal.

Visits: 27

Arizona judge rules common practice of validating ballot signatures illegal.

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.

And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.

Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.

And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.

John Napper

Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.

Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.

“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.

But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.

And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”

Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”

Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”

But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.

Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”

In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.

Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.

It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.

“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”

And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”

So other documents can be helpful.

“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.

“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.

Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.

Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.

Napper was having none of that.

“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”

And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.

“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.

“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”

Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.

“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”

The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.

Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.

Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”

Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.


America's Heartland Daily Hits. How funny is this? Life Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. Satire

Sunday Strip: Extremists from the Other Side of the World.

Visits: 6

If you have a picture or mime, or gif, post it.


Commentary Public Service Announcement

Just for fun, after visiting the 421st Blog…

Visits: 104

I love it when these double-digit IQ people think I care what they say about me. dERp and Leslie Lapsitter are two prime examples. And LL proved she lurks her by posting how I’d banned Stan for calling me a ‘fucking moron’ on my own blog. Thanks for alerting me to the fact that I’d accidentally spammed his comment by the way I banned him, Leslie.

Everyone else, feel free to comment or post other pertinent memes.



Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. The Courts

Winning at the 9th. James O’Keefe Wins HUGE Lawsuit in Oregon: Court Rules Anti-Recording Law Unconstitutional

Visits: 18

Winning at the 9th. James O’Keefe Wins HUGE Lawsuit in Oregon: Court Rules Anti-Recording Law Unconstitutional. This article was originally posted at the GP.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law that prohibits recording in the state of Oregon. James O’Keefe and Project Veritas filed the lawsuit in Portland, Oregon back in 2020.

In Project Veritas vs Schmidt, the organization argued it had a right to engage in undercover journalism and record people without their consent. “WON in Ninth Circuit – Federal Appeals Court STRIKES DOWN Oregon criminal recording law” James O’Keefe said boasting about his win.

“It violates the 1st amendment right to free speech, INVALID ON ITS FACE” – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

“Oregon Revised Statute 165.540(1)(c). This law prohibited anyone from making an audio recording unless that person “specifically informed” others they were recording. But the law also included special permissions from the government to allow for non-notified recording of the police, but not any other government employee,” O’Keefe said.

“That just leaves the government putting its thumb on the lens of newsgathering, deciding which news is easiest to get and skewing reporting. Like the Ninth Circuit has explained before, whatever concerns Oregon has over shoddy reporting or “fake news,” the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true and not the suppression of speech.” O’Keefe added.

Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta out of the 9th circuit in Pasadena, California authored the opinion. Ikuta wrote, “Oregon does not have a compelling interest in protecting individuals’ conversational privacy from other individuals’ protected speech in places open to the public, even if that protected speech consists of creating audio or visual recordings of other people.”





Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Looking. Friday Funnies: Rough Justice

Visits: 31

Looking. Friday Funnies: Rough Justice. Just to break up the day but still being political. You got some cartoons or Giffs, feel free to post them.


If the shoe fits…

Why Weren’t We Allowed To Question The Covid Vaccines? (on Rumble)


Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Looking. Dershowitz to Newsmax: 65 Project Un-American for Targeting Trump Lawyers.

Visits: 18

Looking. Dershowitz to Newsmax: 65 Project Un-American for Targeting Trump Lawyers.

Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Thursday that the 65 Project, a primarily left-leaning group of lawyers that is trying to intimidate lawyers representing former President Donald Trump in post-2020 election litigation or challenging those election results, “the most un-American group of people I have encountered in all my years of practicing law.”

David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America and a senior adviser to the group, told Axios in March 2022 the group’s method of intimidation is to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms.”

Such a move could violate the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a right to “assistance of counsel for his defense.” There is a presumption the amendment provides defendants the right to retain counsel of their choice, although it is not absolute. Such intimidation by the 65 Project could thwart that right, according to Dershowitz.

“These are lawyers who ought to be themselves subject to bar association discipline,” Dershowitz, who was part of Trump’s legal team for his first impeachment, told “Carl Higbie FRONTLINE.

Dershowitz said after he pledged to defend any lawyer pro bono who was targeted by the 65 Project for defending Trump or anyone in his circle, the group filed a complaint with the bar association in Massachusetts, where he lives. He said so far, nothing has come of it.

“I’ve now spoken to three lawyers who were asked to defend either Donald Trump or his co-defendants, and they all are reluctant to do it largely because of Project 65,” Dershowitz said. “This is McCarthyism, the worst form of McCarthyism. It violates the code of professional responsibility. And in numerous ways, it puts the profession in a bad light.”

Dershowitz said every American is at risk when there is a group of “distinguished lawyers, members of the bar, elite members of the bar, members of law firms, people who have held high office in bar associations, essentially threatening lawyers, threatening their careers, threatening their friendships if they continue to represent people this group doesn’t like.”

“It is the worst abuse of the legal profession I’ve seen in 60 years of practicing law, and this is one lawyer who’s fighting back,” he said.

Said Eddie Vale, communications director for the 65 Project, in an email to Newsmax: “Talk is cheap and if Mr. Dershowitz actually believes it he is more than welcome to file a complaint that we would be glad to litigate in addition to ours against him.”


Corruption Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others.

Winning. Schiff is Censured. Now we go to the House Ethics Committee.

Visits: 21

Winning. Schiff is Censured. Now we go to the House Ethics Committee.

The House voted on party lines Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as a formal condemnation for Schiff’s outspoken promotion of allegations that former President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election.

The vote passed 213 to 209. Six voted present, including five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, who are now required to probe Schiff as part of the resolution, and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO).

Democrats, who unanimously opposed the vote, could be seen rallying around Schiff at the conclusion of it, chanting “Shame! Shame!” and “Disgrace!” at House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as the speaker stood up to read the resolution.

“I have all night,” McCarthy said in response to the disruptions.

Censures are rare and serve as the highest form of punishment in Congress outside of an expulsion. Only two other members have been censured in the last nearly four decades, including, most recently, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) for sharing a cartoon of himself killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).



The resolution against Schiff stated that while he was serving as the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he “spread false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.”

Schiff also “perpetuated false allegations from the Steele Dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia into the Congressional Record.”

The resolution required Schiff to present himself in the well of the House floor while McCarthy read the resolution and for the Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation into Schiff’s “falsehoods, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.”

Schiff notoriously claimed while in his position of authority on Intel that “clear evidence” that Trump colluded with the Russians existed in “plain sight,” despite multiple federal investigations ultimately concluding that there was no sufficient evidence of the alleged collusion.

McCarthy removed Schiff from his position on Intel this year because of the same reasons cited in the censure resolution.



Schiff has never retracted his claims and said on the House floor prior to the vote that he would wear the censure as a “badge of honor.”

He said:

I wear this partisan vote as a badge of honor, knowing that I have lived my oath, knowing that I have done my duty to hold a dangerous and out of control president accountable, and knowing that I would do so again in a heartbeat if the circumstances should ever require it.

The resolution was led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who initially included a $16 million fine against Schiff, which she said would compensate for a portion of what American taxpayers ultimately paid for the Trump-Russia federal probes. Several Republicans opposed the fine though, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who said it was unconstitutional, leading Luna to excise that provision.

Several Republicans celebrated the passage of the resolution in statements on social media:

Schiff, who is running for the open Senate seat in California in 2024, has been fundraising off the disciplinary action against him, sending what Insider found to be at least 20 fundraising emails, in addition to social media posts soliciting donations.

Ashley Oliver wrote this article.


Life Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement

But we are always told the police only stop people of color. Pa. State Police data shows no racial profiling in recent study of traffic stopsThe 160-page report conducted by the National Policing Institute showed 78.5% of people stopped were white, 14.4% were Black and 8.2% were Hispanic.

Visits: 7

But we are always told the police only stop people of color. Pa. State Police data shows no racial profiling in recent study of traffic stops. The 160-page report conducted by the National Policing Institute showed 78.5% of people stopped were white, 14.4% were Black and 8.2% were Hispanic.

You’ve heard the stories. White progressives and black race baiters are always telling us how the police just troll out there looking for people of color. Well this report just released yesterday tells a different story. Of the more than 440,000 drivers stopped by Pennsylvania State Police in 2022, a new report shows that nearly four out of five were white and 40 percent were pulled over for speeding. State officials said there were no signs of racial profiling in any of the data collected.



Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others.

Friday Funnies: The New Face of Marxism “It’s a suicide note to the World”

Visits: 39

Thank You Dr. Malone.

Friday Funnies: The New Face of Marxism “It’s a suicide note to the World”

Today’s videos are not comedies, but after four days in Brussels and experiencing the European Parliament in person – my mood is heavy. I worry for the world.

Orwell’s final warning – Picture of the future (On Rumble)

‘Net Zero is taking the world’s population backwards’ (On Rumble)

This week, I have been at the EU Parliament and it is not joke that “Net Zero” messaging dominates at the EU Parliament –

“It is a suicide note to the world” – Neil Oliver

This video seems apropos, given Orwell’s final message (above) to the world.

(BTW: I am looking forward to being on Neil Oliver’s show tomorrow with my friend Dr. Kat Lindley -Saturday, May 6th).


Back Door Power Grab Politics Public Service Announcement The Courts The Law

Follow up: REAL ID creates 2nd-class citizens. Sign petition

Visits: 46

This is the original article (New items follow below.)

Official Penn DOT website blurb

Note the date above: May 7, 2025. On that date, you will become a second-class citizen unless you bow to your masters’ demands.

Papers, please!

Although it’s been delayed several times, the insidious Real ID is coming. You will need to pay for the government’s approval so you can board a flight that NEVER LEAVES THE COUNTRY. And you won’t be able to seek redress of grievances because you won’t be ALLOWED into a Federal — and likely state — building if you don’t have their “Good Sheeple” ID to see your elected representatives. You won’t even be able to check with your local Social Security office about retirement without it. Or register to vote — if you’re a native-born American, that is.

Already, Drivers License locations have a security guard stationed inside them, because “Real ID” is given out there.

So far it’s supposedly a one-and-done deal, once you pay, the Real ID gold star is yours for life.

Does anyone really believe that the bureaucrats won’t draw from that well again — and again? Isn’t that what we were promised for the Covid-19 clot shot, one-and-done? How about the promise that Federal Income tax would only be on the rich? Or that electric cars would be cheaper to run — and less polluting — than internal combustion vehicles?

Okay, so maybe you don’t need to fly across the country, so what? Remember though that the TSA controls ALL public transportation. Think I’m kidding? Did you ever see those notices like on City buses: “The TSA requires all passengers to wear a mask….” How long do you suppose it will take the elitists to require Real ID to board a cross-town bus? They’re already trying to take our cars away from us.

Real ID is anathema to our country’s ideals

The very idea of Real ID is anathema to what the country stands for (or used to stand for) in the first place. In the second place, does anyone care to bet that the current surge of illegal immigrant/future democrat voters won’t need it — or that the elitists will provide it to them so they can continue to vote democrat?

I didn’t think so.

I know some leftist loons will claim I’m a conspiracy theorist. OTOH, how many things that the left decried as a “conspiracy theory” has been proven true?

We need to remove the upcoming “Real ID” restrictions for access to airlines and government buildings

The much-delayed “Real ID” will violate the Constitution if allowed to go into effect.

First, In limiting access to ALL federal buildings only to those with a “Real ID,” the law infringes on the 1st amendment right “ petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Already you can find armed security personnel in many federal and other government buildings. If you can’t get into the building, you can’t see your elected Congressional representatives or testify before any federal entity. If they can make exceptions, then the law is i weapon to silence critics, not to protect anyone.

Second, The need for a “Real ID” to fly on a commercial airplane WITHIN THE UNITED STATES is effectively a “no-fly” list for citizens who don’t desire a “Real ID.” This violates the “general welfare” clause of the Preamble, and while it might be construed as lawful under Article One, Section eight “regulate interstate commerce” clause, personal (ie non-business) travel by definition is NOT “commerce.” And one could reasonably argue that it violates the 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

“Real ID” creates an illegal underclass for people who may simply want to be left alone and not have “Big Brother” constantly looking over their shoulders.

It is also the first step to communist-style “travel documents” to control the movement of the citizens of the US.

Make your voice heard! Sign the petition here:


Verified by MonsterInsights