Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

That's a relief.  I was afraid that would morph into something semi-serious with the poll worker's operation of the tabulators (the red/green button issue).  Looks like the plaintiffs had no evidence on that issue and the defendants had an explanation.

And only a handful of votes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean it's not surprising, but the absolute depth of stupidity on there is staggering.  Just staggering.

 

I think that was some expert trolling.  But, as I have mentioned on other posts, it's really difficult to discern parody these days. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted

 

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Holy.

Fuck.

Seriously......we have a country occupied by morons who actually think that way. Who actually think that the case won't be mooted in its entirety once Biden takes the oath of office.  How in the fuck do we survive that?

That thread is jaw dropping. Shows just how desperate some of them are for good news or evidence of a "long game."

A question I have is if Rule 11 sanctions are coming any time soon. It seems like every case I read about runs afoul of 11(b). Especially (3). How much longer do the courts need to give them for a "reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery" when this was the most covered election in the history of the world? I watched McEnanny hop onto Fox News and talk about how much fraud there was and wave a stack of papers, conveniently marked "Exhibit J" on the front in 70 pt Times New Roman, saying it was all affidavits detailing how poll watching laws weren't followed in PA. What she didn't do, not one time, is cite a specific law and how that law was broken. That essentially tells me that what she was waving around was either just a stack of hurt feelings of R poll watchers in affidavit form or, given this administration's stunt with the health care book presented to 60 Minutes, a stack of Family Circus comics printed on 8.5x11.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52588

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Actually, while funny, there's significant meaning in that.  The Trump strategy reveals that they improperly delayed all of their complaints and concerns -- most of the things they are bitching about now were known or easily ascertainable MONTHS before the election.....when, if the plaintiffs had brought a timely complaint to the election officials and/or litigated, they could have been remedied.  If you knew of possible defects, but sat on your hands to save them as an argument to toss out the whole election...you won't be rewarded for that.

That should be the biggest driver of the rule change related suits. And evidence should be the biggest driver of fraud related ones. So far, that’s held in all the courtrooms it sounds like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even so, many agtag idjits were buying it hook, line, and sinker.

That is an excellent point.  In their version of reality, it is a reasonable path forward.  It really demonstrates the problem: BMX writes something on the internet, sounding somewhat authoritative and factual, with specific dates and the government organizations spelled correctly, and that's all it it takes to be credible. For many of these Trumpsters, there simply is no concept of what is realistic.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105319

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

 

That thread is jaw dropping. Shows just how desperate some of them are for good news or evidence of a "long game."

A question I have is if Rule 11 sanctions are coming any time soon. It seems like every case I read about runs afoul of 11(b). Especially (3). How much longer do the courts need to give them for a "reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery" when this was the most covered election in the history of the world? I watched McEnanny hop onto Fox News and talk about how much fraud there was and wave a stack of papers, conveniently marked "Exhibit J" on the front in 70 pt Times New Roman, saying it was all affidavits detailing how poll watching laws weren't followed in PA. What she didn't do, not one time, is cite a specific law and how that law was broken. That essentially tells me that what she was waving around was either just a stack of hurt feelings of R poll watchers in affidavit form or, given this administration's stunt with the health care book presented to 60 Minutes, a stack of Family Circus comics printed on 8.5x11.

That would make sense.  I mean, so far, this is what their star witness lineup has looked like:

 

9fc416995d96d2030d549033255bb271.gif

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Royalfan5

Royalfan5 2355

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

That is an excellent point.  In their version of reality, it is a reasonable path forward.  It really demonstrates the problem: BMX writes something on the internet, sounding somewhat authoritative and factual, with specific dates and the government organizations spelled correctly, and that's all it it takes to be credible. For many of these Trumpsters, there simply is no concept of what is realistic.  

Everything  you like seems realistic to the non-curious among us.

Edited by Royalfan5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52588

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

 

That thread is jaw dropping. Shows just how desperate some of them are for good news or evidence of a "long game."

A question I have is if Rule 11 sanctions are coming any time soon. It seems like every case I read about runs afoul of 11(b). Especially (3). How much longer do the courts need to give them for a "reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery" when this was the most covered election in the history of the world? I watched McEnanny hop onto Fox News and talk about how much fraud there was and wave a stack of papers, conveniently marked "Exhibit J" on the front in 70 pt Times New Roman, saying it was all affidavits detailing how poll watching laws weren't followed in PA. What she didn't do, not one time, is cite a specific law and how that law was broken. That essentially tells me that what she was waving around was either just a stack of hurt feelings of R poll watchers in affidavit form or, given this administration's stunt with the health care book presented to 60 Minutes, a stack of Family Circus comics printed on 8.5x11.

It’s funny how the long game keeps getting longer. 
we had to let the voting happen to get the fraud on record. Relax it’s all part of the plan. Then we had to count the votes and make them “counted” before we could take action.  Relax it’s all part of the plan.  Then Biden actually has to be announced the winner and make an acceptance speech before we can get him. All part of the plan. Now he’s going to be installed without technically having won the election, making him eligible to run again. Planning. 
 

trump is the king conman, because he’s put together a con in which the marks con themselves to his benefit.  It’s self sustaining. 
 

the problem is that nuclear fission is also self sustaining, and without the carbon rods to control it there’s a critical mass reached and then very bad things. 
 

this election aftermath is Trump lifting the rods out of the reactor. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30303

Posted
Posted
Do judges always write like this, or are they as a collective taking great joy in these rulings against Trump/Trump campaign/state GOP/random GOP people?

They are egalitarian only when it comes to abusing all unprepared lawyers peddling bullshit. Their tolerance for untruthiness is usually much lower than in state court.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Eastwood said:

 

That thread is jaw dropping. Shows just how desperate some of them are for good news or evidence of a "long game."

A question I have is if Rule 11 sanctions are coming any time soon. It seems like every case I read about runs afoul of 11(b). Especially (3). How much longer do the courts need to give them for a "reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery" when this was the most covered election in the history of the world? I watched McEnanny hop onto Fox News and talk about how much fraud there was and wave a stack of papers, conveniently marked "Exhibit J" on the front in 70 pt Times New Roman, saying it was all affidavits detailing how poll watching laws weren't followed in PA. What she didn't do, not one time, is cite a specific law and how that law was broken. That essentially tells me that what she was waving around was either just a stack of hurt feelings of R poll watchers in affidavit form or, given this administration's stunt with the health care book presented to 60 Minutes, a stack of Family Circus comics printed on 8.5x11.

Courts really don't like imposing Rule 11 sanctions.  Historically, Rule 11 was ignored for about 50 years.  Then, during the "Rambo litigation" in the 80s, it became a weapon, leading to the 1993 amendments which gave the offending party an opportunity to withdraw or amend before sanctions could be imposed and Rule 11 mostly died again.

In these cases, the remedy is pretty simple:  the relief sought becomes moot or impossible to deliver after a relatively brief period of time.  So, the "normal course" during which a plaintiff might develop evidence through discovery doesn't apply; they have to seek expedited relief.  If they can't come up with the evidence to support expedited/extraordinary relief, the relief gets denied and the lawsuit becomes essentially moot; certainly as to the relief initially sought.

Theoretically, Rule 11 applies not only to the lawsuit/pleading itself, but to any motion, which would include one for expedited/extraordinary relief.    So even though the lawsuit itself might be supported by evidence after extensive discovery and thus not sanctionable, the motion for TRO or preliminary injunction could be.  Even so, courts are, in my observation, even less likely to award Rule 11 sanctions for something other than a pleading.

Also, this level of election law is not highly developed, so it's pretty easy to say that you are arguing for a good faith extension of existing law.

Finally, even the timeframe of Rule 11, with 21 days to withdraw or cure, doesn't fit the timeline in these cases.

tl:dr In the timeframe in which these decisions must be made by the courts, it's simpler just to deny the relief sought than go to the extreme of dismissing/sanctioning under Rule 11.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Let me spare y’all the suspense.

Trump has and will claim fraud, as will his lawyers.

Judges will ask for evidence and the lawyers will shrug their shoulders.

Judges will dismiss all cases and lawyers will go home

Trump will still claim fraud and his dipshit supporters will echo that claim.

At some point trump will give up and flee, whereabouts unknown. 

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands will die for Corona. 

Biden gets sworn in as president on January 20 and inherits the biggest shitshow ever inherited. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26007

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, horncyclist said:

PA suit going well:

 

 

Screenshot_20201113-091116.png

That's a Vic Special IMO

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was at a docket call or something in a state court and there was a hearing on a motion to withdraw.  I think it was the judge that said something to the effect of "I take it you can't find Mr. Green"?  To which the lawyer replied, "no, and Mr. Green is critical to the case," or something to that effect.  It may actually have been reversed and the lawyer brought it up. It brought some snickers from the gallery.

I'm not implying that you aren't coming 100% correct; just pointing out that there was a similar scene with The Minister of Culture in "The Lincoln Lawyer".

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

If this fiasco has taught us anything, it’s that there are too many goddamn lawyers.

Wrong. It takes good lawyers to point out how big a dipshit Trump and his lawyers are.

Why do you think Hitler wanted to first kill all the lawyers? 

Its the job of lawyers to prevent people from killing each other over money. Without the lawyers, you either get people killing each other over money, or you get dictators like Trump  and hitler making those calls. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

That's a Vic Special IMO

I'm not implying that you aren't coming 100% correct; just pointing out that there was a similar scene with The Minister of Culture in "The Lincoln Lawyer".

 

 

 

This would have been a decade or more before the Lincoln Lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34332

Posted
Posted
Man, I can't tell you how many times I file a pleading that amounts to "we all agree that X is super bad.  And if I had proof of X, I should totally win.  Therefore, grant me all the relief I ask for because remember, X is super bad.  And let's skip over the part where I don't have any proof of X."  You don't file those regularly?  Suckers, coloring only inside the lines.
You forgot the part where the relief you request is actually worse than the thing everyone agrees is bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
27-25

27-25 2055

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Mrs. James Blalock is doing really well at 96.  We should all be so lucky, well other than having your name dragged through the mud by the President and his henchmen who can't be bothered to factcheck.  Checking things one does not deal with on a regular basis, if ever, may be harder than I imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Courts really don't like imposing Rule 11 sanctions.  Historically, Rule 11 was ignored for about 50 years.  Then, during the "Rambo litigation" in the 80s, it became a weapon, leading to the 1993 amendments which gave the offending party an opportunity to withdraw or amend before sanctions could be imposed and Rule 11 mostly died again.

In these cases, the remedy is pretty simple:  the relief sought becomes moot or impossible to deliver after a relatively brief period of time.  So, the "normal course" during which a plaintiff might develop evidence through discovery doesn't apply; they have to seek expedited relief.  If they can't come up with the evidence to support expedited/extraordinary relief, the relief gets denied and the lawsuit becomes essentially moot; certainly as to the relief initially sought.

Theoretically, Rule 11 applies not only to the lawsuit/pleading itself, but to any motion, which would include one for expedited/extraordinary relief.    So even though the lawsuit itself might be supported by evidence after extensive discovery and thus not sanctionable, the motion for TRO or preliminary injunction could be.  Even so, courts are, in my observation, even less likely to award Rule 11 sanctions for something other than a pleading.

Also, this level of election law is not highly developed, so it's pretty easy to say that you are arguing for a good faith extension of existing law.

Finally, even the timeframe of Rule 11, with 21 days to withdraw or cure, doesn't fit the timeline in these cases.

tl:dr In the timeframe in which these decisions must be made by the courts, it's simpler just to deny the relief sought than go to the extreme of dismissing/sanctioning under Rule 11.

I remember that sanctions are very seldomly brought down. In Civ Pro we had a case, can't remember which, where the judge spent the bulk of the opinion beating the offending attorney about the head and shoulders only to not levy sanctions against them. Now that attorney is immortalized in casebooks. I'm sure Thor up in Michigan might meet a similar fate of being in a casebook or two.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

I remember that sanctions are very seldomly brought down. In Civ Pro we had a case, can't remember which, where the judge spent the bulk of the opinion beating the offending attorney about the head and shoulders only to not levy sanctions against them. Now that attorney is immortalized in casebooks. I'm sure Thor up in Michigan might meet a similar fate of being in a casebook or two.

IIRC, you are a law student? Or just took the bar?  Anyway, I kind of elaborated for that purpose.  Having gone to law school immediately post-Rambo, all of that got a pretty good going over.  But puppy lawyers were still "Rule 11 their ass" for a few more years.  And sometimes Rule 11 would be met with Rule 11.  Practicing lawyers don't pay it much mind anymore.

Sanctions, under other rules, particularly in relation to discovery, and post-trial attorneys fees are still common enough when a lawyer or client acts a fool.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRealRonWeaver?

TheRealRonWeaver? 1258

Posted
Posted
Wrong. It takes good lawyers to point out how big a dipshit Trump and his lawyers are.
Why do you think Hitler wanted to first kill all the lawyers? 
Its the job of lawyers to prevent people from killing each other over money. Without the lawyers, you either get people killing each other over money, or you get dictators like Trump  and hitler making those calls. 

Good lawyers, yes. Too bad they hand out law degrees like samples of Tide in the mail. There are too many lawyers.

Sincerely, a UT Law grad and practicing lawyer.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted



IIRC, you are a law student? Or just took the bar?  Anyway, I kind of elaborated for that purpose.  Having gone to law school immediately post-Rambo, all of that got a pretty good going over.  But puppy lawyers were still "Rule 11 their ass" for a few more years.  And sometimes Rule 11 would be met with Rule 11.  Practicing lawyers don't pay it much mind anymore.
Sanctions, under other rules, particularly in relation to discovery, and post-trial attorneys fees are still common enough when a lawyer or client acts a fool.


I'm taking the Bar next year. Your explanation tracks with what we were taught, but I still think it's wild that some of these instances wouldn't trigger a Rule 11.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Eastwood said:


 

 


I'm taking the Bar next year. Your explanation tracks with what we were taught, but I still think it's wild that some of these instances wouldn't trigger a Rule 11.

 

A couple of other things are that it is sure to draw an appeal, and fairly likely to get reversed and ain't nobody got time for that, generally speaking.

And, if there's a clear path to deny the relief and/or dismiss the suit on the merits, or by a procedural path, that is almost always an easier path.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hanrahan

Hanrahan 1306

Posted
Posted





I'm taking the Bar next year. Your explanation tracks with what we were taught, but I still think it's wild that some of these instances wouldn't trigger a Rule 11.


I’ve been practicing trial law for 17 years and never seen a rule 11 or 13 (Texas state court) sanctions order. Seen them threatened out the wazoo and seen routine discovery sanctions orders entered from time to time. Wouldn’t hold your breath on this, as frivolous as it appears.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...