the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

 

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Have they produced the affidavit they claim lead to the opinion?

Wasn't that the one where the individual's name was redacted because he/she was a top security official or something like that? It sounded a little sketch kinda like the computer shop guy who just happened to have the laptop of Hunter Biden dropped off and left unclaimed.

 

Here it is: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/531668-washington-post-identifies-powells-secret-witness-as-pro-trump-podcaster

Edited June 24, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins
Yes, found the link. I had forgotten the details.

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Wasn't that the one where the individual's name was redacted because he/she was a top security official or something like that? It sounded a little sketch kinda like the computer shop guy who just happened to have the laptop of Hunter Biden dropped off and left unclaimed.

 

Here it is: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/531668-washington-post-identifies-powells-secret-witness-as-pro-trump-podcaster

She filed literally dozens of affidavits.  Many of them were utter bullshit.  Some a bit less so.  Those that were not bs tend not to support her wild claims, but might support some vague allegations of non-specific irregularities.

If the case gets into whether she, as a 30+ year attorney, should have believed, relied upon, or submitted those affidavits in court, she's going to get her ass handed to her.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[atomheartbevo 89,655]

37 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

So, you can say something blatantly false, and if your intention is to help person A, then person B who is harmed by your lie has no standing, since it was not your intention to hurt them, merely a collateral effect?

Sounds like good, solid moral reasoning there.

We need to deploy this reasoning in our attacks on OU.

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We need to deploy this reasoning in our attacks on OU.

Apples to oranges comparison; it turns out, even when they have a better football team than we do, OU still sucks. That is a fact admissible in evidence any damned where.

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

So you have 3 different defendants arguing 3 different things, at least 2 of which are contradictory to each other?

Team Lowell saying no rational person would believe her, and team pillow saying it’s all true?  Plus team Rudy saying so what you can’t do anything about it?

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So you have 3 different defendants arguing 3 different things, at least 2 of which are contradictory to each other?

Team Lowell saying no rational person would believe her, and team pillow saying it’s all true?  Plus team Rudy saying so what you can’t do anything about it?

I believe Rudy would prefer his defense be referred to as the "Niener-niener" defense, but basically, yes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So you have 3 different defendants arguing 3 different things, at least 2 of which are contradictory to each other?

Team Lowell saying no rational person would believe her, and team pillow saying it’s all true?  Plus team Rudy saying so what you can’t do anything about it?

 

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

On 6/23/2021 at 12:00 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Does anyone know if Briscoe Cain filed any election suits in 2020? I recall that he posted on Twitter about flying out to PA to help Trump's legal support but he quickly went quiet when people made fun of him. I assume that his main role in PA was running out to Chick-fil-a to pick up lunch for the actual lawyers but perhaps they let him do real lawyering as well.

He was working mostly on his knees.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,869]

4 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

He was working mostly on his knees.

and on a high chair because, you know, he's a little person

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

36 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So you have 3 different defendants arguing 3 different things, at least 2 of which are contradictory to each other?

Team Lowell saying no rational person would believe her, and team pillow saying it’s all true?  Plus team Rudy saying so what you can’t do anything about it?

12 ft tether of all 3. Each gets a dull rusty knife. Only one walks away, Winner take all !!!!!

[Captainant 27,656]

Another good courtroom report thread

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Another good courtroom report thread

 

 

 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Isn’t asserting knowingly false information to a court bad? I mean it’s been proven there’s no evidence by over 60 courts. 

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

But see, Mo is a stone cold pot committed troglodytic oafish nincompoop.

That “knowingly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

[Gil Bang 25,944]

This is interesting:

 

 

[Gil Bang 25,944]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

The judge wants to ask each of them, personally, their role in preparing and filing the objectionable pleadings.

I believe by merely permitting their names to appear on the pleadings, they are subject to sanctions, but the judge may be wishing to clarify their role, perhaps in connection with what specific sanctions are levied on each attorney.

Trying to argue that they are not parties and may appear by counsel I imagine pissed the judge off further.

Edited July 8, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45,676]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The judge wants to ask each of them, personally, their role in preparing and filing the objectionable pleadings.

I believe by merely permitting their names to appear on the pleadings, they are subject to sanctions, but the judge may be wishing to clarify their role, perhaps in connection with what specific sanctions are levied on each attorney.

Trying to argue that they are not parties and may appear by counsel I imagine pissed the judge off further.

So what are the odds of anything rel happening to these fuckheads? 

[Underdog 28,614]

Judge be like: 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

38 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what are the odds of anything rel happening to these fuckheads? 

Pretty high.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what are the odds of anything rel happening to these fuckheads? 

The fact that the judge wants them there personally is a pretty bad sign for them.

Edited July 8, 2021 by JimmyJames

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty high.

Concur. Judges don't like people who abuse the legal process. And if you are a lawyer, these are some pretty serious allegations. 

Legal system is holding firm, thank goodness. 

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Concur. Judges don't like people who abuse the legal process. And if you are a lawyer, these are some pretty serious allegations. 

Legal system is holding firm, thank goodness. 

It does raise the question what they will be on the hook for.  I think we can count on the opponent's legal fees, possibly for defense of the entire suit.  I think disbarment from practice in E.D. Mich. is pretty likely as well.  Not sure if there would be any additional fines or penalties, depending on how hard the judge goes on the legal fees.

"Normally," I think, all of the lawyers appearing on the signature line would be "jointly and severally liable" for the fees, meaning if there's any allocation to be done, it's among them.  In this case, there were a lot of attorneys listed, on the signature line and elsewhere on the pleadings, so the judge doesn't want to rely on "appearance" only and joint and several liability.  He wants to probably try and make some allocation among the attoeneys according to fault.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It does raise the question what they will be on the hook for.  I think we can count on the opponent's legal fees, possibly for defense of the entire suit.  I think disbarment from practice in E.D. Mich. is pretty likely as well.  Not sure if there would be any additional fines or penalties, depending on how hard the judge goes on the legal fees.

"Normally," I think, all of the lawyers appearing on the signature line would be "jointly and severally liable" for the fees, meaning if there's any allocation to be done, it's among them.  In this case, there were a lot of attorneys listed, on the signature line and elsewhere on the pleadings, so the judge doesn't want to rely on "appearance" only and joint and several liability.  He wants to probably try and make some allocation among the attoeneys according to fault.

As you well know disbarment from one court is a serious deal. It’s kind of like getting a tax levy on your credit report that totally fucks up your credit, but also where you are required to report it to any bar you are a part of or are applying to even pro hac vice. It’s a good thing the judge is trying to figure out who did what in that case. It’s not a small matter.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2,073]

3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Jesus these clowns.  The gall it takes to ask if they have to personally appear. 
 

judge:

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,676]

2 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

Jesus these clowns.  The gall it takes to ask if they have to personally appear. 
 

judge:

 

 

Great fucking reference. C’mon out and get your whoopin!

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Concur. Judges don't like people who abuse the legal process. And if you are a lawyer, these are some pretty serious allegations. 

Legal system is holding firm, thank goodness. 

I do think all of the judges presiding over the Kraken suits should have ordered them to show cause, sua sponte, instead of waiting for the opponents to move for sanctions.  I think a couple of the courts lost jurisdiction before that could happen.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,192]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty high.

I'll believe it when I see it.  From everything I've seen, an attorney has to damn near kill someone in court, to get in trouble.  Love protecting their own. 

[hpslugga 4,058]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I'll believe it when I see it.  From everything I've seen, an attorney has to damn near kill someone in court, to get in trouble.  Love protecting their own. 

I don't necessarily agree with the premise regarding attorneys in general, but these guys? Yes, I too will believe it when I see it.

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

Let's put it this way.  Federal courts largely operate on paper, without hearings.  There are exceptions, including "extraordinary relief" as was the case in many of these election suits (preliminary injunctions, etc.).

If a court were inclined not to grant sanctions, it would do so on the motions and briefs and not order hearings with personal appearances.

Some form of hell is coming for these people Exactly what is yet to be determined.

Elsewhere, probably on this thread, there was some discussion of First Amendment defenses lawyers might have to disbarment or other bar proceedings.  It's kind of nice to see the NY bar shred those, but be reminded that that is a preliminary decision.

We know the Georgia Bar is moving on Wood due to insanity.

We won't know what the Texas Bar is doing to Powell basically until it's done.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The judge wants to ask each of them, personally, their role in preparing and filing the objectionable pleadings.

I believe by merely permitting their names to appear on the pleadings, they are subject to sanctions, but the judge may be wishing to clarify their role, perhaps in connection with what specific sanctions are levied on each attorney.

Trying to argue that they are not parties and may appear by counsel I imagine pissed the judge off further.

Maybe the judge wants to clarify which ones get a simple bullet to the head and which ones get skinned alive and dismembered prior to being set on fire.

Didn't think of that, did you Mr. Fancy Lawyerpants.

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

I’m sure they will all deny having had anything to do with the case beyond being listed, and that everyone else there wrote the briefs and whatnot.  Hopefully it happens under oath so that when they all deny, the judge will know that at least one of them has perjured themself. 

['stache 21,805]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m sure they will all deny having had anything to do with the case beyond being listed, and that everyone else there wrote the briefs and whatnot.  Hopefully it happens under oath so that when they all deny, the judge will know that at least one of them has perjured themself. 

Doesn't matter. Kavanaugh and friends will save them from whatever a district judge does, because "free speech," and continued persecution of the white conservative people, which just cannot stand, bro.

Edited July 8, 2021 by 'stache

[TwiceHorn 31,452]

16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Doesn't matter. Kavanaugh and friends will save them from whatever a district judge does, because "free speech," and continued persecution of the white conservative people, which just cannot stand, bro.

Um.  Nah.  Supreme Court isn't granting cert in an attorney discipline case.

[Gil Bang 25,944]

anybody else watching this sanctions hearing?  

 

It's basically the judge going through the documents saying "which one of you took a shit on the floor of my courtroom"

[Gil Bang 25,944]

Lin Wood is saying "I had nothing to do with any of this".

[HenryJames 66,045]

I’d like to cite Fuck Around v. Found Out.

[wildcat09 29,349]

 

Things must be going well.

[tx 3 putt 76,908]

Bwahahahahahaha

[Beau Vine 54,212]

[Captainant 27,656]

lol these bunch of fuckstick lawyers. Bunch of fucking putzes trying to pull "my memory is a little foggy about that affidavit..."

[Beau Vine 54,212]

This Haller lady is about to cry again.  Her voice is cracking.  She knows she's fucked.

[Francisco 2.0 32,389]

Nice, long Twitter thread from a reporter:

 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,389]

Or just watch it in progress:

 

 

 

[Beau Vine 54,212]

11 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

This Haller lady is about to cry again.  Her voice is cracking.  She knows she's fucked.

"I need to refresh my recollections to be honest."

[henrygandorf 29,189]

On 7/7/2021 at 7:20 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It does raise the question what they will be on the hook for.  I think we can count on the opponent's legal fees, possibly for defense of the entire suit.

so what happens when they just decide not to pay?  consistent behavior is consistent. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,792]

34 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Lin Wood is saying "I had nothing to do with any of this".