the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Gatorubet 30,294]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Neither is numbering apparently. 

I swear to God, it’s like you have something against coke -fueled law firm orgies prior to filing briefs. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Neither is numbering apparently. 

The nature of Texas state court proceedings is such that, unlike federal courts, Texas state trial courts rarely if ever give a reasoned opinion of their judgment.  They usually say "relief granted" or "relief denied."  This particular order is more verbose than most, but it still doesn't really explain anything.  https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/DocumentViewer/Embedded/T4HaT-uz7UaQgXOQNeSRFDuZ9fbl7EonroG5EfWWqDlnmSRPbxMEMug2-8o-8z_0Aqbt9yPSyVuP8dIkKKXu5Q2?p=0

I think that there are some legal errors in the order, namely that pleadings aren't competent summary judgment evidence.  That's true in some cases, but when the pleading is the evidence of the "offense," namely in that it contains misstatements of fact and misrepresents evidence, as was the case here, they are fully competent summary judgment evidence.

I have a sense that this will be quickly reversed by the Court of Appeals, but sussing that out is more work than I am willing to put into it.

[RDCanecutter 26,466]

Good to know if I get in legal trouble, I can bribe some flunky to fuck up the labels on the exhibits.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I swear to God, it’s like you have something against coke -fueled law firm orgies prior to filing briefs. 

 

Well, this is a handful of lawyers employed by the State Bar, not a law firm.  I actually dated a gal that became a Bar litigator.  They're usually pretty competent if not good.  I took a disciplinary case to the Texas Supreme Court and won and Bar counsel were worthy adversaries.

The "new" disciplinary system gives Texas lawyers the right to go straight to court instead of a grievance panel, when it used to be that going to court was in the nature of an appeal, or a do-over.  It's kind of sad because Texas state trial courts are about 50% clown show, whereas only about 10-20% of federal trial courts are a clown show.

[DDD Dad 14,347]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The nature of Texas state court proceedings is such that, unlike federal courts, Texas state trial courts rarely if ever give a reasoned opinion of their judgment.  They usually say "relief granted" or "relief denied."  This particular order is more verbose than most, but it still doesn't really explain anything.  https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/DocumentViewer/Embedded/T4HaT-uz7UaQgXOQNeSRFDuZ9fbl7EonroG5EfWWqDlnmSRPbxMEMug2-8o-8z_0Aqbt9yPSyVuP8dIkKKXu5Q2?p=0

I think that there are some legal errors in the order, namely that pleadings aren't competent summary judgment evidence.  That's true in some cases, but when the pleading is the evidence of the "offense," namely in that it contains misstatements of fact and misrepresents evidence, as was the case here, they are fully competent summary judgment evidence.

I have a sense that this will be quickly reversed by the Court of Appeals, but sussing that out is more work than I am willing to put into it.

Dallas Court of Appeals recently reversed a no evidence summary judgment based on evidence that was in the record but never even mentioned by the appellant even on appeal. So I’d say there’s a decent chance it gets reversed depending on the panel. 

[Gatorubet 30,294]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The "new" disciplinary system gives Texas lawyers the right to go straight to court instead of a grievance panel, when it used to be that going to court was in the nature of an appeal, or a do-over.  It's kind of sad because Texas state trial courts are about 50% clown show, whereas only about 10-20% of federal trial courts are a clown show.

In Louisiana, a woman dressed as a voodoo priestess with “ODC” on her headdress sacrifices a white dove and examines the entrails of the bird.  It is not always an accurate resolution, but it does provide meat for gumbo.

[Pato del Muerto 52,571]

Napoleon code is weird

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Dallas Court of Appeals recently reversed a no evidence summary judgment based on evidence that was in the record but never even mentioned by the appellant even on appeal. So I’d say there’s a decent chance it gets reversed depending on the panel. 

One seemingly galactic fuckup here is that the Bar said the Motion was premature due to ongoing discovery and disputes and failed to submit an affidavit to that effect.  I haven't set foot in a Texas state court in about 15 years and I know to do that.

[DDD Dad 14,347]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One seemingly galactic fuckup here is that the Bar said the Motion was premature due to ongoing discovery and disputes and failed to submit an affidavit to that effect.  I haven't set foot in a Texas state court in about 15 years and I know to do that.

IIRC there is some intermediate authority (off the top of my head I don’t think it’s Dallas though) that it is error to grant a no evidence motion before the end of a discovery period. However under the rule it is the movant’s burden to establish that a sufficient time for discovery has elapsed and courts require strict compliance with the rule. 
 

I didn’t read the opinion but the court did reject a motion for continuance by the bar. 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

IIRC there is some intermediate authority (off the top of my head I don’t think it’s Dallas though) that it is error to grant a no evidence motion before the end of a discovery period. However under the rule it is the movant’s burden to establish that a sufficient time for discovery has elapsed and courts require strict compliance with the rule. 
 

I didn’t read the opinion but the court did reject a motion for continuance by the bar. 

Yeah, I was wondering about that.  Powell filed a couple of regular MSJs and the bar filed separate, verified motions for continuance, but when she filed a no-evidence, they did not.  They didn't seem to argue it as a continuance per se, but just that the motion itself was premature.  In federal court, if I was even sniffing around that, I'd include the requisite showing of what specific discovery was not done and what it would prove, etc.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,216]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I did say that disbarring or even disciplining Powell was not as simple as it appears.

Because that’s the way the system works which is exactly what I said.

[Captainant 27,739]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One seemingly galactic fuckup here is that the Bar said the Motion was premature due to ongoing discovery and disputes and failed to submit an affidavit to that effect.  I haven't set foot in a Texas state court in about 15 years and I know to do that.

So WEIRD how all these fuckups keep favoring the fascists right?? So STRANGE how every attempt to hold them to account keeps finding the nittiest grittiest thing to hold up justice right????

 

Jesus fucking Christ if you worked on the titanic you'd be telling people in the water that it's just a brief swim because you were told the ship is unsinkable. Open your fucking eyes and look around dude. Fascists are getting away with it. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Captainant

[Horn Dog 9,904]

Next time I get a speeding ticket, I am wearing a MAGA cap for my court date.  It is truly a get out of jail/avoid any consequences for my actions cloak of invincibility.

[Gil Bang 26,000]

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

The law is working as it was intended. Hurting the poor and protecting the rich 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

So WEIRD how all these fuckups keep favoring the fascists right?? So STRANGE how every attempt to hold them to account keeps finding the nittiest grittiest thing to hold up justice right????

 

Jesus fucking Christ if you worked on the titanic you'd be telling people in the water that it's just a brief swim because you were told the ship is unsinkable. Open your fucking eyes and look around dude. Fascists are getting away with it. 

If the bar lawyers fucked up they fucked up. 

Do you want to call it some kind of cosmic conspiracy between the commission for lawyer discipline, Merrick Garland, Peter Thiel and rich white people everywhere to let the fascists off? 

Jesus Christ dude. Your emotions get the best of you. Your conspiracy theories on everything legal are as bad as the Magats. 

I personally think this is a setback but not the end of the story. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30,294]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Because that’s the way the system works which is exactly what I said.

No, you blame a fuck up on some Q-Anon like cabal of Sidney protectors - not sure if the system is The Deep State, “The Man” or Reptilian Shape Shifters.    

Your reasoning is exactly like Q-nuts think, with a different political bent. 

I once defeated a summary judgment against my client by noticing on the day of the hearing that the affidavit submitted by my opponent’s expert had not been notarized correctly.   Add to that, I almost missed the damn hearing because it had been reset when I was sick with the flu and got mis-calendared while I was away.  Screw ups happen sometimes.  

It did not mean there was a galactic conspiracy to protect Charity Hospital or my client because we both had less than our best day in court. 

[Captainant 27,739]

It's not that there's some galactic conspiracy or grand cabal dictating that things should be as they are - it's just that our system is fundamentally unequipped to handle these sorts of bad actors that abuse the court system and directly attack our democracy. Have you fucking forgotten WHAT trump did? In broad fucking daylight? You're allowed to acknowledge his acts, even if the all mighty and all knowing court system won't address it for MORE THAN TWO FUCKING YEARS AFTER COMMITTING A CRIME ON LIVE FUCKING TELEVISION

You are going to the absurd to avoid addressing the hollow failure of our legal system to address a criminal who undermines the very fabric of our democracy. 

I'll stop """being emotional""" when meaningful action is taken, and/or when our courts stop getting bamboozled left right and center by fascist coordinators and leaders. For fuck's sake, we can't even keep steve fucking bannon behind bars - and he doesn't even pay his fucking lawyers!

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It's not that there's some galactic conspiracy or grand cabal dictating that things should be as they are - it's just that our system is fundamentally unequipped to handle these sorts of bad actors that abuse the court system and directly attack our democracy. Have you fucking forgotten WHAT trump did? In broad fucking daylight? You're allowed to acknowledge his acts, even if the all mighty and all knowing court system won't address it for MORE THAN TWO FUCKING YEARS AFTER COMMITTING A CRIME ON LIVE FUCKING TELEVISION

You are going to the absurd to avoid addressing the hollow failure of our legal system to address a criminal who undermines the very fabric of our democracy. 

I'll stop """being emotional""" when meaningful action is taken, and/or when our courts stop getting bamboozled left right and center by fascist coordinators and leaders. For fuck's sake, we can't even keep steve fucking bannon behind bars - and he doesn't even pay his fucking lawyers!

I don't disagree that some aspects of "the system" are not equipped to handle these sorts of bad actors.  The legislative system, in particular.

I have addressed that what you think is a crime is not a convictable crime without development of further evidence.

I'm not going to absurd anything.  I explain how this shit works.  You just want to bitch and cry about it.

 

[Captainant 27,739]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't disagree that some aspects of "the system" are not equipped to handle these sorts of bad actors.  The legislative system, in particular.

I have addressed that what you think is a crime is not a convictable crime without development of further evidence.

I'm not going to absurd anything.  I explain how this shit works.  You just want to bitch and cry about it.

 

You painting that criticism as conspiracy and bitching and crying is part of the problem and why things won't change.

You're so busy with explaining how to hold your nose and eat a shit sandwich, you forgot that we don't HAVE to eat one. Or at the very least, don't have to act like it's what we should expect to be served every day

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

You painting that criticism as conspiracy and bitching and crying is part of the problem and why things won't change.

You're so busy with explaining how to hold your nose and eat a shit sandwich, you forgot that we don't HAVE to eat one. Or at the very least, don't have to act like it's what we should expect to be served every day

Read your own words.

It's not couched as criticism.  It's always couched as some form of hysterical overreaction that can be summarized as "everything's fucked."

Everything is not fucked.  Like it or not, the legal system is a process, like a football game or just about anything else.  You don't win every down, or series of downs, or quarters or even halves.  But you can still win the game.  Even the righteous don't proceed along a linear path from point A to point B.  It's time consuming, for everyone, not just fascist haters and it takes time, for everyone.

I have always said that there are going to be some difficulties in applying bar discipline to Sidney Powell.

This outcome, which is not final by any means, doesn't seem to have much to do with that difficulty, but possibly with some procedural or other errors, or even an inattentive or possibly biased trial judge.  This kind of thing is well within the "margin of error" for a hotly contested litigation.  As a lawdog, you don't throw up your hands and declare that everything is fucked, you start thinking about the next steps.

You would do well to bear in mind that Sidney Powell enjoyed no success in the legal system in the first place.  And neither did 60 some-odd other similar lawsuits.  And, similarly, Trump is enjoying no success in the legal system, post-Presidency.  As a peanut gallery, we've been lucky so far to see pretty good to great lawyering on behalf of the good guys.

This is the first time in this saga that we're confronted with what seems to be kind of shoddy lawyering for the good guys.  It has not been my experience that Bar lawyers suck, quite the contrary, actually.  But my experience with it is somewhat limited, thankfully.

The next steps for the bar are to make a Motion for New Trial, where they can possibly clean up some of their errors, and/or to appeal the judgment.  As DDDDad pointed out, the vehicle by which this dismissal was secured can be tough to uphold on appeal, because it means the bar had a complete failure of proof on essential elements of their case.  The evidence they presented was the complaint in the Michigan litigation with altered exhibits, which seems to me to be more than a scintilla (a very tiny amount) of evidence that Powell knowingly and intentionally misrepresented facts to the court in that case.

You're main beef with me is that you want to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.  These aren't my opinions, they're neutral explanations of what happened and why, unaccompanied by my personal opinions on it or any hysterical conclusion that everything's fucked.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19,216]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You would do well to bear in mind that Sidney Powell enjoyed no success in the legal system in the first place.  And neither did 60 some-odd other similar lawsuits.

And since there have been no consequences what's to prevent the next round of bullshit lawsuits?  Throw enough shit at the wall, something's going to stick at some point and then we're all proper fucked.

 

Quote

I have always said that there are going to be some difficulties in applying bar discipline to Sidney Powell.

You also said multiple times that various actions were the kind of stuff that gets pee pees whacked, yet no pee pees are getting whacked so they have no incentive to stop.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Fudge Nuggets

[Captainant 27,739]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You're main beef with me is that you want to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.  These aren't my opinions, they're neutral explanations of what happened and why, unaccompanied by my personal opinions on it or any hysterical conclusion that everything's fucked.

No my beef is that you continue to shout ALL IS WELL! REMAIN CALM!!! While the fascists continue to plan and RUN FOR FUCKING OFFICE and roll back the civil rights of citizens in this country. 

But yeah I'm sure by the time this gets through district and to the circuit court for appeals and then to the supreme court they'll FINALLY start to get things right, five to ten years down the road. And after getting it wrong and giving comfort and the benefit of the doubt to the fascists the whole way along, of course. 

 

My consternation with you is something like what we all felt towards the sunshine pumpers during the Chuck Strong and Herman years. Yes sure it should be better, but it sure fucking isn't and there's no indication of evidence besides rhetoric that it will be. So your insistence of

Is pretty fucking exhausting, yeah. 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

No my beef is that you continue to shout ALL IS WELL! REMAIN CALM!!! While the fascists continue to plan and RUN FOR FUCKING OFFICE and roll back the civil rights of citizens in this country. 

But yeah I'm sure by the time this gets through district and to the circuit court for appeals and then to the supreme court they'll FINALLY start to get things right, five to ten years down the road. And after getting it wrong and giving comfort and the benefit of the doubt to the fascists the whole way along, of course. 

 

My consternation with you is something like what we all felt towards the sunshine pumpers during the Chuck Strong and Herman years. Yes sure it should be better, but it sure fucking isn't and there's no indication of evidence besides rhetoric that it will be. So your insistence of

Is pretty fucking exhausting, yeah. 

I don't actually say all is well.  This is not ideal.

But, your constant refrain of "everything's fucked," with no other substantive content is more exhausting.

Do you shit yourself when your code doesn't compile or execute?  Or do you go back and look at it and fix it?

And, to use your sunshine pumper analogy, you're the Greenspoint of this shit that declares "ballgame" after the first quarter interception.

Edited February 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

And since there have been no consequences what's to prevent the next round of bullshit lawsuits?  Throw enough shit at the wall, something's going to stick at some point and then we're all proper fucked.

 

You also said multiple times that various actions were the kind of stuff that gets pee pees whacked, yet no pee pees are getting whacked so they have no incentive to stop.

Actually, I never said Powell would get her peepee whacked.  She did get sanctioned in Michigan.  As far as bar discipline, I've always been guarded about whether that's going to work to anyone's satisfaction.

And, this ain't over.

[RomaVicta 29,988]

13 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The law is working as it was intended. Hurting the poor and protecting the rich 

Little guys used to get a break from time to time, but they've been trained to hate lawyers, unions, their congressperson, the press, and any government agency created to help them. They cheer moves that diminish their chances against the great powers.

The great powers shamelessly drink up everyone's milkshake long after their enormous capacity has overflowed.

They drink it up.

[elfenix 34,331]

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I once defeated a summary judgment against my client by noticing on the day of the hearing that the affidavit submitted by my opponent’s expert had not been notarized correctly.  

i re-read jurats like 10 times when i write them

Edited February 26, 2023 by elfenix

[Captainant 27,739]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't actually say all is well.  This is not ideal.

But, your constant refrain of "everything's fucked," with no other substantive content is more exhausting.

Do you shit yourself when your code doesn't compile or execute?  Or do you go back and look at it and fix it?

And, to use your sunshine pumper analogy, you're the Greenspoint of this shit that declares "ballgame" after the first quarter interception.

Yeah dude, we've been real short of fixing shit lately. The lack of action towards actually fixing things or addressing ANY of the issues we've discussed at length is a big part of why I feel the way I do. 

My entire adult life, our government and justice system has protected the wealthy, cut back rights, and generally kowtowed to authoritarians. Well fucking oust Al Fraken for a joke photograph from 15 years ago but can't do anything about the fraudsters in Congress or those that LED AN ATTACK AGAINST THE PEACEFUL EXCHANGE OF POWER. 

 

This isn't me saying "ballgame" after the first quarter. This is me saying "wow we sure fucking suck huh?" after watching another shitty bubble screen on 3rd and 15 staring down the barrel of missing a bowl game AGAIN. Oh yeah and we aren't gonna change any coaching staff or game plan or anything. The system is sound! We just need to HOPE a little bit harder, and then maybe it'll all turn around without us needing to do anything!

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

45 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i re-read jurats like 10 times when i write them

I had some dumbass object to a declaration under 28 USC 1746 that cited the statute right next to it.

[Captainant 27,739]

This article gives a bit more clarification to what the "reason" was to protect the fascist. Seems fucky to me, relevant portion below: 

Quote

Bouressa, a Republican, said in her ruling that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline had "failed to meet its burden" in part because of "difficulty locating materials cited in the Commission's brief." 

The judge said the commission's motion had listed exhibits A through F, but the "actual documents attached to the response were marked Exhibits A through H, and did not match the documents described in the brief." When the court contacted the Commission about the errors, the latter responded that "no corrective action was necessary," according to Bouressa's ruling.

She added that in "light of the numerous defects in the Commissions exhibits," she did not consider much of the submitted exhibits.  As a result, just two of the documents cited by the Commission were considered, Bouressa wrote in Thursday's order. The decision is appealable, the judge said. 

So the bar submitted their filing with exhibits A through F, but actually had A through H. So of course, the documents and the information don't exist and should not be considered! How silly of me to think otherwise, that a court may care about justice over secretarial errors! 

(Edit) misread former/latter in the article. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Captainant

[UpperWestside 6,187]

I am not sure where we are at right now on the Dotard Scorecard of Lawsuit Dominance, but he sure does seem to be closer to Charlie Strong vs. Kansas than Nick Saban vs. the field.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah dude, we've been real short of fixing shit lately. The lack of action towards actually fixing things or addressing ANY of the issues we've discussed at length is a big part of why I feel the way I do. 

My entire adult life, our government and justice system has protected the wealthy, cut back rights, and generally kowtowed to authoritarians. Well fucking oust Al Fraken for a joke photograph from 15 years ago but can't do anything about the fraudsters in Congress or those that LED AN ATTACK AGAINST THE PEACEFUL EXCHANGE OF POWER. 

 

This isn't me saying "ballgame" after the first quarter. This is me saying "wow we sure fucking suck huh?" after watching another shitty bubble screen on 3rd and 15 staring down the barrel of missing a bowl game AGAIN. Oh yeah and we aren't gonna change any coaching staff or game plan or anything. The system is sound! We just need to HOPE a little bit harder, and then maybe it'll all turn around without us needing to do anything!

The system is what the system is. I tell you what the system is and how what may seem an interminable delay is just par for the course, or that an apparent disaster isn't so disastrous.  This may be one of them.  It certainly looks fixable to me, but what I don't know is how much stomach the bar has to pursue this.

In the past, most of these things went to a grievance committee comprised of lawyers and laypeople that decided whether any ethical rules were violated and only if the lawyer didn't agree to the sanction from the committee was there a lawsuit.  Now it goes straight to a lawsuit if the lawyer elects that.  That may spread the bar counsel thinner than they have been in the past, I don't know for sure.

Each of these matters is its own ballgame.  Some are against Alabama, and some are against UNT. 

You don't have any suggestions about playcalls or personnel or coaching, you just rant that we suck, or, more accurately that the games are rigged. Our team actually has a pretty stellar record in the post-presidency era.  You complain about games that haven't even started yet, and one that ain't finished.

[Sawbonz 27,584]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One seemingly galactic fuckup here is that the Bar said the Motion was premature due to ongoing discovery and disputes and failed to submit an affidavit to that effect.  I haven't set foot in a Texas state court in about 15 years and I know to do that.

Do the 10 lawyers who aren’t absolute morons all post here?

[Gatorubet 30,294]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This article gives a bit more clarification to what the "reason" was to protect the fascist. Seems fucky to me

Hanlon's Razor states: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence.

“When the court contacted the Commission about the errors, the latter responded that "no corrective action was necessary," according to Bouressa's ruling.”

Ant, it is fucky.   Whether it was intentionally fucky to help “the fascist“ remains to be seen.   The thing is, poor lawyering is not exactly a rare exception.    

[Captainant 27,739]

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Ant, it is fucky.   Whether it was intentionally fucky to help “the fascist“ remains to be seen.   The thing is, poor lawyering is not exactly a rare exception.    

I'm just saying: throwing out an ENTIRE case because a filing was (A thru F) instead of (A thru H) doesn't pass the sniff test. It looks like the court doesn't want to disbar Powell and is looking for ANY reason to not do so. 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This article gives a bit more clarification to what the "reason" was to protect the fascist. Seems fucky to me, relevant portion below: 

So the bar submitted their filing with exhibits A through F, but actually had A through H. So of course, the documents and the information don't exist and should not be considered! How silly of me to think otherwise, that a court may care about justice over secretarial errors! 

(Edit) misread former/latter in the article. 

I posted the actual order above.  The gist of it is that Powell claimed that the Bar had no evidence of her knowing misrepresentation of fact in any of the lawsuits in question.

The Bar responded by filing a copy of the lawsuit complaint with its altered exhibit (dates omitted from two documents represented in the complaint to be evidence of the speed with which Dominion voting machines were adopted).  That is a scintilla of evidence that a jury could use to infer that she knowingly misrepresented facts to the court.  It is unclear which exhibit is labeled which, but it does seem fairly clear that those documents were properly in the summary judgment record.

The Bar also said the motion was premature and that further discovery would bolster the evidence of knowing misrepresentation, but they inexplicably didn't file an affidavit to that effect.

It's a very strange deal.  The Bar certainly did not dot I's or cross T's, but I'm not sure this judgment will hold up on appeal.  If the Bar decides to appeal it.

What this does demonstrate is the need to develop evidence in these types of cases and, beyond the procedural problems, it doesn't appear that the Bar has done a spectacular job of doing that, to date.  They deposed Sid, Spyder, and Lewis Sessions and got apparently a shitload of disorganized documents from Powell.  The trial date was set for April, but that tends not to be an immovable object.

[SaucyJack 3,500]

[Captainant 27,739]

This same sort of "stall and steal the sting" tactic is exactly how Barr neutered the Mueller report and prevented any true accountability for trumpco with russia. The public remembers the leading headline - POWELL BISBARMENT SUIT DISMISSED, and it undermines support for the matter that is being investigated/prosecuted. And then once public support is eroded, the matter goes away and the fascists keep on doing their thing facing no real consequences. 

 

Like, y'all are touting that Powell is 0 and sixty something in the courts as some sort of evidence for the system working. Those cases are the raison d'etre for this entire lawsuit! The fact that this court is protecting Powell's ability to file more frivolous cases to further muddy the public discourse with disinformation IS A BAD THING AND A REASON TO BE FUCKING CONCERNED! This courts exceptionally unusual action is directly contributing to a worse outcome. 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm just saying: throwing out an ENTIRE case because a filing was (A thru F) instead of (A thru H) doesn't pass the sniff test. It looks like the court doesn't want to disbar Powell and is looking for ANY reason to not do so. 

That's not a fair representation of what happened, as far as can be figured.

In summary judgment, you must submit evidence in the form of affidavits, deposition transcripts, discovery responses, and documents that are proven to be authentic.  The Bar made a skimpy response, comprising only documents, and apparently erred in marking them as exhibits.

For this type of motion, a skimpy response can be adequate and it seems to me probably should have been adequate.  The mislabeling of exhibits may have made the response skimpier than it was intended to be.  The record in the case is a fucking mess.

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

 

Like, y'all are touting that Powell is 0 and sixty something in the courts as some sort of evidence for the system working

It absolutely is evidence of the system working. So is the entire failed 1/6 attempt.  And the conviction of the Trump Org for tax fraud, and the ongoing Letitia James civil suit where a receiver was appointed to keep Trump from more fuckery,  And the 900 plus 1/6 insurrectionists charged with federal crimes, of whom nearly 600 have been convicted and only one acquitted. And the pending criminal investigations of Trump that are proceeding apace with apparent victories for the government on executive privilege issues for grand jury witnesses.  And the swift reversal of Cannon's special master order.   And the constant losses of Trumpco on tax returns and executive privilege, including denial of certiorari by the calvinball court.

This is, currently, a setback but not the end of the line.  And, I'm not sure the bar discipline case is quite an Alabama game, but it was going to be tough from the outset, because the fact of the matter is that Americans basically have the right to file shitty lawsuits.  Think gimpy second string QB and small shifty running back.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

13 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I once defeated a summary judgment against my client by noticing on the day of the hearing that the affidavit submitted by my opponent’s expert had not been notarized correctly.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26,523]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:54 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It absolutely is evidence of the system working.

The gravamen of the complaint, counselor, is that you seem to be celebrating the fact that (with apologies to Anatole France) the law, in its majestic equality, treats procedural error and systematic abuse of the system by officers of the court acting in bad faith as if they were the same thing. 

You don’t need a galactic conspiracy for a systemic bias to exist. You merely need the class who controls the system to take care of their own first. 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The gravamen of the complaint, counselor, is that you seem to be celebrating the fact that (with apologies to Anatole France) the law, in its majestic equality, treats procedural error and systematic abuse of the system by officers of the court acting in bad faith as if they were the same thing. 

You don’t need a galactic conspiracy for a systemic bias to exist. You merely need the class who controls the system to take care of their own first. 

The problem with all of this, you see, is that ordinarily the system is biased against poorer, darker defendants.  It's not biased in favor of the richer paler ones, although the difference is subtle.

Because we don't have a poor or dark defendant here, the bias is mostly inoperable.

One of the principal reasons the bias exists is that richer, paler defendants have top-flight, top-dollar counsel.  That is no longer true of our orange boi and most of his minions.

And, with respect to the Bar, it looks like the bar lawyers did a less than spectacular job of prosecuting this case.  For what reasons, I'm sure we can speculate wildly.

As mentioned, under past disciplinary systems, bar lawyers and lawsuits didn't come about until there was already a determination of culpability, either by a grievance panel, another bar association, or a criminal court (compulsory/ reciprocal discipline).  In past days, that meant that Bar Counsel tended to be pretty rabid true believers in their cause and worthy adversaries.  Under the current system, a bar grievance can go straight to court for initial proof, and that may take some of the fire out of them, and, it may mean there are more of them, spread more thin, and of a less uniform quality.

Edited March 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26,523]

I don’t think you are quite right- “the system” is extraordinarily biased against minorities and those without access to resources but systems are ordinarily  or perhaps almost always biased for those who control them, in this case the professional class on whose good faith and competence the system depends- or at least biased towards taking good faith and competence for granted. I think this is why alcoholic and drug addicted lawyers pay the price while the profession tolerates and accepts incompetents and abusers. Addicts are sloppy and embarrassing- allowing for the existence of incompetence and abuse would make outsiders question the integrity of the system, and we can’t have that, can we?

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, with respect to the Bar, it looks like the bar lawyers did a less than spectacular job of prosecuting this case.  For what reasons, I'm sure we can speculate wildly.

Oh weird this one handful of doctors consistently generates most of the medical malpractice claims in my town. We can speculate why, better cap medmal claims. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t think you are quite right- “the system” is extraordinarily biased against minorities and those without access to resources but systems are ordinarily  or perhaps almost always biased for those who control them, in this case the professional class on whose good faith and competence the system depends- or at least biased towards taking good faith and competence for granted. I think this is why alcoholic and drug addicted lawyers pay the price while the profession tolerates and accepts incompetents and abusers. Addicts are sloppy and embarrassing- allowing for the existence of incompetence and abuse would make outsiders question the integrity of the system, and we can’t have that, can we?

Oh weird this one handful of doctors consistently generates most of the medical malpractice claims in my town. We can speculate why, better cap medmal claims. 

What I mean is, and it is somewhat subtle, for a person of means and not subjected to external biases (meaning those like race not unique to the justice system), the system operates "as intended."  You can call that bias if you want.  I would call it unbiased in those circumstances, because "as intended" pretty much speaks for itself.

There are some instances where the poor and sometimes even the dark are able to obtain top-flight, top-dollar counsel, such as contingent-fee injury litigation, where the system operates as intended, or, largely unbiased, even when countered by deep=pocket defendants.  

You are correct that addict lawyers often get the hammer, but usually when that addiction leads to misappropriation of client funds, which is the bar discipline kiss of death.  I actually represented an addict lawyer that got control of herself before committing any such malfeasance and was able to save her law license and change the law of compulsory discipline upon commission of a crime.  And, I'd say the bar, through TLAP, is increasingly sensitive to addiction and mental health issues and getting impaired lawyers help before they commit the kiss of death.  But, like all addict-related endeavors, the consequences get to sit where they lie.

Incompetence, at least "bursts" of it, which we pretty much all have from time to time, is not an ethical matter strictly speaking, so is addressed by the tort system.   The chronically incompetent I think usually get hung up on neglect, because they seem to go hand in hand.

I'm not sure about "abusers."  I personally know of an off-and-on client that got disbarred for porking a client, that's abusive.  And you see that from time to time.

Not sure why you're conflating medical discipline with attorney discipline.  I think the bar is far more active in disciplining its members than the TMA.  Although the bar could surely use some improvement.

And, I'll repeat, I think disbarring or otherwise disciplining Powell would have been fairly difficult, because Americans have the basic right to file shitty lawsuits, subject to sanctions. Lawyers get sanctioned all the time without getting disbarred or even disciplined.  And unless it can be proven that the allegations of the lawsuit were knowingly false, not just subject to proof and not negligently or recklessly false, discipline or disbarment is going to be tough.

Proving that someone lied to the level of court proof can be really tough.  To use an unfortunate example, we all knew Bill Clinton was lying about porking Monica Lewinsky, but it took Starr years to prove it and millions of dollars.  It's even more difficult in the contest of a lawsuit, where the basic allegations of any lawsuit may prove to be untrue, but the lawyer and client have the right to try to prove them.

 

[Captainant 27,739]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I'll repeat, I think disbarring or otherwise disciplining Powell would have been fairly difficult, because Americans have the basic right to file shitty lawsuits, subject to sanctions. Lawyers get sanctioned all the time without getting disbarred or even disciplined.  And unless it can be proven that the allegations of the lawsuit were knowingly false, not just subject to proof and not negligently or recklessly false, discipline or disbarment is going to be tough.

Not just one or two shitty lawsuits. As you've been so happy to remind us, MORE THAN SIXTY FRIVOLOUS SUITS that waste taxpayer and court time. Powell's own filings state that "no reasonable person would conclude [that] her statements were truly statements of fact". That demonstrates and is evidence of her knowingly spreading false information - those same facts and information is what she used in her (count em!) more than sixty cases.

Like, is it physically impossible for you to hold all of this in focus at the same time? You're so close to holding all the pieces together to stop being an apologist for a broken and fascist-favoring legal system

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Not just one or two shitty lawsuits. As you've been so happy to remind us, MORE THAN SIXTY FRIVOLOUS SUITS that waste taxpayer and court time. Powell's own filings state that "no reasonable person would conclude [that] her statements were truly statements of fact". That demonstrates and is evidence of her knowingly spreading false information - those same facts and information is what she used in her (count em!) more than sixty cases.

Like, is it physically impossible for you to hold all of this in focus at the same time? You're so close to holding all the pieces together to stop being an apologist for a broken and fascist-favoring legal system

It may be broken in some respects but it is not fascist favoring. 

And, no, I don't have problems understanding or holding this all in focus because I understand it.

None of this to date, has decided whether Sidney Powell made untrue statements of fact, knowing them to be untrue.   That remains an open question.

I personally think she's a lying, deranged piece of shit.  But proving that in a court of law takes a little more than "Captainant is sure she's a lying piece of shit and is big mad about it."

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8,725]

I’m firmly in the ‘Sidney Powell should not have a law license’ camp and any institution that allows her to continue to practice as a lawyer has failed the legal profession and the public 

[TwiceHorn 31,533]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m firmly in the ‘Sidney Powell should not have a law license’ camp and any institution that allows her to continue to practice as a lawyer has failed the legal profession and the public 

Right this minute, we seem to be looking at a procedural fuckup, not one on the merits, although the issue seems to center around how knowing were Powell's lies and how to prove that.  Blaming the Bar at this point is blaming the individual attorneys that seem to have fucked it up.  If the bar doesn't pursue it further, then maybe we have a problem with the Bar.  We'll see.

[Red Five 40,881]

Powell got her crazy election theories from a self-described time traveler. If she wasn't knowingly lying then she needs to be institutionalized.