Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer's defamation lawsuit against former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake has ended with a Superior Court judge ruling that Lake's comments did not qualify as “rhetorical exaggeration.” It continues to exist as a result of the decision.
Judge Jay Adleman denied Lake's two motions to dismiss, finding her claims were “patently false” and may have been made with “actual malice.” The decision places the burden on Mr. Lake's lawyers to prove that his accusations are based on fact.
Richer sued Lake and his campaign for defamation, repeatedly claiming they interfered in the 2022 election by tampering with printing presses and inserting invalid votes into the count.
Her lawyers have filed two motions to dismiss, one on free speech grounds and the other to suppress lawsuits filed to prevent constitutional rights and political participation. This is based on Arizona's anti-SLAPP law.
Lake argued that the statements were based on fact but colored merely by “rhetorical hyperbole” and were protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Adleman rejected that argument.
“The alleged statements in this case cannot be categorized as merely 'descriptive' language,” Adleman wrote. “Lake’s statements regarding the existence of improper 19-inch ballots and/or 300,000 fraudulent ballots have been identified by fact-checkers as true or false when considered in light of the available evidence. There is a possibility that
As for the printer error, Adleman pointed to statements made by Lake in an interview, saying he had “no evidence” that Richer and Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates “intentionally printed the wrong images on the ballots.” He claimed to have proof. On election day, everyone was voting for me. ”
And regarding the ballot injection claims, Adleman cited another interview in which Lake said that Richer and Gates said, “You can't steal just by dropping 300,000 fake ballots with no chain of custody.'' , which they did. They had to disrupt Election Day.”
Mr. Adleman further found that Mr. Richer made a sufficient allegation of actual malice. Actual malice requires that the statement be made “with knowledge of falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Richer argued that Lake had in fact maliciously parroted the accusations and that Lake and his campaign “had a financial motive to solicit donations in connection with the defamatory statements.” He further argued that Mr. Lake established his claims before his election and continued to do so even after his claims were rejected by multiple courts.
As for the anti-SLAPP law, Adleman ruled that Richer's claims “are consistent with First Amendment principles” and therefore cannot be dismissed based on the law's constitutional considerations. .
“We are grateful that the court rejected the defendants' efforts to avoid liability for their false and defamatory statements,” Richer said in a statement. “Working as a public servant should not lead to death threats, harassment, or defamation. No one is above the law in this country, and I look forward to continuing to pursue justice. ”
Ms. Lake wrote in a social media post that Ms. Richer had sued her “for exposing corruption in an election she conducted.” She added, “This strips away First Amendment rights and interferes with U.S. Senate elections. This lawsuit should have been thrown out of court.”
The case is currently moving toward discovery. Lake must now prove that his accusations are true. Adleman set a retrial for Jan. 19.
