the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[TwiceHorn 31498]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're not wrong.

The great thing about the legal system is that it involves humans, who can make nuanced human judgments.  That is also its giant, gaping flaw.

There is no such thing as a bulletproof system.  Design it rigidly to avoid the exceptional outcome that you hate?  That rigidity will lead to stupid injustices.  Design it too loosely, where there are no objective standards, and the outcome is just whatever some random person decides?  That will lead to stupid injustices.  Try to strike the perfect balance?  Good luck with that.  You will miss that bullseye.  Because the exact same system will turn out to be too rigid in one case, and too loosey-goosey in another.

It's a human system.  There will always be a significant error rate.  Which, by the way, is one of my main reasons for opposing the death penalty.  That's an irrevocable outcome (you can't un-execute somebody once they're dead).  We generally should not impose irrevocable results reached by a fallible system.

I regularly have to tell clients that if they are looking for "justice," they've come to the wrong place.  Because that asshole who wronged you?  We all KNOW that "justice" for him should be complete ruination, a kick in the balls, and payment to you of all money you lost, plus your attorney's fees.  The legal system can only deliver, and inconstiistenly, on three of those (and while most folks feel like a trip through the system is "ruination," it's actually not a common outcome at all, so really, the legal system is mostly about awarding money.  Sometimes, it's a place for equitable remedies (an injunction to order you to stop kicking me in the balls), but even then....that's just a piece of paper).

Justice is for God to administer.  I can get you damages and/or an injunction, but even then, understand that the other side is gonna hire a lawyer who's going to argue that you shouldn't get either.

I'll add that the problems with the justice system are just variations of the problems of society.  As brisket says, it's an endeavor of man and of the particular society it represents, so it's shot through with the same problems as the society itself.

Inequality in the justice system is largely a product of the economic inequality that pervades society.  Same with racism and other-ism.  Bad laws that provide grist for the judicial mill are an independent cause of injustice, and on certain occasions the justice system can get rid of the bad laws.

So, want to fix the justice system?  Start somewhere else.

But as for the criminal justice system, make 20 years the maximum sentence for all but capital crimes.  Revisit sentences every five years or so to incentivize rehabilitation and actually provide rehabilitative services in prisons.  Divert more people to drug and mental health courts, and then do it again.  Cut way back on collateral consequences of convictions.

The civil system doesn't need near as much work.

[Brisketexan 105158]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The civil system doesn't need near as much work.

Maybe.  Maybe not.

I will say this: I occasionally deal with some bad actors (lawyers, parties, or both).  Not just jerks, or hard to deal with, but really bad actors.  And I sometimes get frustrated that courts don't dish out sanctions to those people as freely as I'd prefer.  BUT, the flip side of that is that if we made it EASY to sanction the other side.....then every case would get clogged up with a dozen dueling Motions for Sanctions.  Sanctions are doled out only rarely, so they are genuinely requested (GENUINE, not just a throwaway line in a pleading) pretty rarely.  Which is probably the better outcome, of the two potential scenarios.  Kind of a cousin of the "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man serve life in prison" principle.

Humanity is our name, imperfection is our game.

But know this...if I ever end up on the bench, I intend to be a hangin' judge.  I will suggest to counsel that they submit a motion for sanctions against their opponent if I think they are warranted.  Fucking behave in my goddamn courtroom.

So, that's another of the billion reasons why I'll never be a judge.

[Captainant 27680]

39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, realize that every degree by which you "clamp down" on "bad lawyers" also means you clamp down on clients who would choose that lawyer.  I'm not saying we shouldn't do more of it -- I think that Sidney Powell is hot garbage and should be disbarred.  I'm just suggesting that it's not an "easy answer, why haven't we made it easy to yank lawyers' licenses?" kind of thing.

I'm certainly not advocating for just yanking law licenses - I think that's a pretty absurd reduction to take my frustration to.

I'm just suggesting that when it's this fucking obvious and well documented in the public record that someone was lying to the court in bad faith with the intent to subvert our constitution (and by connection, the court system itself), maaaaayyyyyybe we shouldn't take so fucking long to do something about it. 

The frustration comes from seeing manifold injustice leveled against joe citizen at an expedited pace, often backed by completely fabricated evidence predicated on blind trust in a cop's affidavit; contrasted against this painstaking and pearlclutching process against a transparently malicious actor who's ON THE FUCKING RECORD AND BRAGGING IN INTERVIEWS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING ALLEGED AGAINST HER IN THE SUIT

[Brisketexan 105158]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm certainly not advocating for just yanking law licenses - I think that's a pretty absurd reduction to take my frustration to.

I'm just suggesting that when it's this fucking obvious and well documented in the public record that someone was lying to the court in bad faith with the intent to subvert our constitution (and by connection, the court system itself), maaaaayyyyyybe we shouldn't take so fucking long to do something about it. 

The frustration comes from seeing manifold injustice leveled against joe citizen at an expedited pace, often backed by completely fabricated evidence predicated on blind trust in a cop's affidavit; contrasted against this painstaking and pearlclutching process against a transparently malicious actor who's ON THE FUCKING RECORD AND BRAGGING IN INTERVIEWS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING ALLEGED AGAINST HER IN THE SUIT

Yeah...about that.  Don't think that the garden-variety criminal case moves super-fast either.  I'm no apologist for bad cops (seriously, check out my posting history) etc.  But a pretty consistent feature of our system is that it creeps along for the most part.  And that often cuts AGAINST the accused, who would often like their case over and done with ASAP.

I think that Powell should hang, and she should be disbarred.  She openly and proudly lied to multiple courts, it was knowing, and she bragged about it.  I'm certainly confused at how there could be any question of whether there was any evidence of that but again, I haven't seen the actual pleadings.

 

[safe sex 11735]

Lmao at $150/hr being the low end lawyer. 

[TwiceHorn 31498]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.

I will say this: I occasionally deal with some bad actors (lawyers, parties, or both).  Not just jerks, or hard to deal with, but really bad actors.  And I sometimes get frustrated that courts don't dish out sanctions to those people as freely as I'd prefer.  BUT, the flip side of that is that if we made it EASY to sanction the other side.....then every case would get clogged up with a dozen dueling Motions for Sanctions.  Sanctions are doled out only rarely, so they are genuinely requested (GENUINE, not just a throwaway line in a pleading) pretty rarely.  Which is probably the better outcome, of the two potential scenarios.  Kind of a cousin of the "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man serve life in prison" principle.

Humanity is our name, imperfection is our game.

But know this...if I ever end up on the bench, I intend to be a hangin' judge.  I will suggest to counsel that they submit a motion for sanctions against their opponent if I think they are warranted.  Fucking behave in my goddamn courtroom.

So, that's another of the billion reasons why I'll never be a judge.

Note that I didn't say "any work."  Still it is more or less a voluntary system, in contrast to the criminal system.

For example, poor people don't get cornholed nearly as often in the civil system, hell they don't even enter it very often.

I think there are some problems with discrimination cases, but it's a tough one.  The judiciary seemed to decide that maybe discrimination cases should be a little more incremental than Congress thought.  Then again, they are dependent on ascribing unspoken motives and that can be a hazardous business.

I tend to think bankruptcy reforms are over-heavy-handed in the consumer area, but there is some moral hazard to consider.  It was probably pretty much ok before BAPCPA.

I don't really count the Supreme Court as part of the workaday civil system.  It could use some work, but does mostly ok as a component of the workaday civil system.  Quite problematic obviously in the criminal and civil rights contexts.

Edited March 2, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31498]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah...about that.  Don't think that the garden-variety criminal case moves super-fast either.  I'm no apologist for bad cops (seriously, check out my posting history) etc.  But a pretty consistent feature of our system is that it creeps along for the most part.  And that often cuts AGAINST the accused, who would often like their case over and done with ASAP.

I think that Powell should hang, and she should be disbarred.  She openly and proudly lied to multiple courts, it was knowing, and she bragged about it.  I'm certainly confused at how there could be any question of whether there was any evidence of that but again, I haven't seen the actual pleadings.

 

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/Home/Dashboard/29

DC-22-02562 | COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DSICIPLINE vs. SIDNEY POWELL

Haha nice typo.

Joe Bob sez check it out.

One of the problems is that Powell made two regular MSJs then a No-E and the Bar seemed to recycle its response and flubbed it up.  The docket is quite a mess.

Edited March 2, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[HenryJames 66128]

Carry on.

[TwiceHorn 31498]

47 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Carry on.

Well, criminals probably ought to be on the parole board.

[Satchel 6938]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It never was anything else.

If you like "justice," you'd better believe in a higher power.  Anything more than some sort of "rough justice" is beyond the capability of mankind.

I guess that’s why we don’t have a Department of Peace and why the DOJ is not called Department of Legal Affairs.

[Beau Vine 54256]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Or, maybe the judge was just a fascist and looking for any excuse to dump the suit.  You can't entirely rule it out, but it's not the most likely explanation.

I don't know why you'd say this.

[nbmishoid 949]

19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What result is sickening?  That Sidney Powell isn't disbarred yet?  That more lawyers aren't routinely disbarred?  That Trump hasn't been judicially hanged outside the local Esso station?

Or the myriad other injustices out there in the criminal justice system and elsewhere?  We're getting somewhat afield here, but people are making uniformed and hysterical declarations that "'the fix is in" because Sidney Powell won a no-evidence summary judgment in a disbarment case under somewhat unusual circumstances apparently provoked by some sloppiness on the part of lawyers for the Bar.

It aint over yet.  This is a pimple on the ass of American jurisprudence.

Firstly, thanks to you, Gator, and Brisket for the time you took on my very, overly simplified questions.  I think it was you who said we can expect no different from the legal profession than the public at large.  That hits me as glaringly true, given the tremendous size of the population.  Decades ago I read we were graduating in the US 300,000 lawdogs per year, compared to 300 PhD physicists.   Even correcting for education, lawyers surely remain a valid sample of the population at large, wrt politics, morals, perfidy, etc.  And from this such questions I have asked fall into the black hole of reality.  If I read you right.

I have to say from my experience o&g professionals, my former homies, are less representative ( a much smaller sample) and definitely rightward leaning.

As for sickening, I would refer you to any modern work of history of the US.  It is the patterns therein that suggest the fix is in, not the Powell pimple.  
 

As for the White Hat (and who is wearing it, who is perceiving it argument) , I’m reminded of Rorty and pragmatism.  Yes, at the limit, we can never prove the righteousness of our view, this does not denude us of moral obligations.  Even for pragmatism, this ultimately breaks down to being against cruelty.  This  can help with the white hat question.
Not so much in the courtroom, I get it.   If the law and the courts can’t help us reduce cruelty, and given that Christianity in the US apparently cannot, how do we proceed?

Cheers

[Gatorubet 30246]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

If the law and the courts can’t help us reduce cruelty, and given that Christianity in the US apparently cannot, how do we proceed?

Cheers

I think the legal system could do better if I had my own private jet and could avoid the demons infecting my practice.   All I got. 

[nbmishoid 949]

Gator

I know I would be less cruel with fewer demons and my own jet.  Not so good for inequality but that’s for another time.  Thanks, Gator, for the time you put into these discussions, serious and not.

[Gatorubet 30246]

22 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Gator

You present expertly correct view here.  
But I don’t over rate fairness.  A four year old knows what fairness is ( or used to know) to an actionable degree.   Many folks find the term interchangeable with justice.  But none us can completely delimit these terms for everyone else.

So I’ll used another word.  The results are sickening, broadly inhumane, not what society wants.  Seriously. So, Gator, what do you and Twice recommend to improve things.  

 

Legislators routinely enact really shitty laws that are poorly written, difficult to interpret, and sometimes unconstitutionally vague. Eventually, real parties are in court subject to those poorly drafted laws.  When outcomes in court are not like many people would wish, it is the lawyers and the legal system who are routinely blamed.    It’s like you had mechanics who were given a whole bunch of tools that are not perfectly sized and don’t fit the machine parts they are trying to fix.

I don’t have any concrete substantive  ideas on how to fix things to make it work perfectly. Although trite, our bad system is far superior to many other country’s systems.

Sometimes you just try to do the best you can with what you have.

 

[TwiceHorn 31498]

54 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Legislators routinely enact really shitty laws that are poorly written, difficult to interpret, and sometimes unconstitutionally vague. Eventually, real parties are in court subject to those poorly drafted laws.  When outcomes in court are not like many people would wish, it is the lawyers and the legal system who are routinely blamed.    It’s like you had mechanics who were given a whole bunch of tools that are not perfectly sized and don’t fit the machine parts they are trying to fix.

I don’t have any concrete substantive  ideas on how to fix things to make it work perfectly. Although trite, our bad system is far superior to many other country’s systems.

Sometimes you just try to do the best you can with what you have.

 

Courts basically no longer have a roving mandate to remedy inequity.  Sometimes they can do so by filling in gaps in written laws, but they mostly just interpret and apply written laws and develop what's left of the judge-made common law.

Five centuries ago, when church and state were not separate, the ecclesiastical courts, later known as courts of equity, essentially had a roving mandate to do justice and mercy that could not be had in courts of law.  Courts of equity retained that capacity to some extent after the separation of church and state in England and elsewhere.  They never had much traction in the US, as such.

But, as almost everything has been codified nowadays (meaning written into statutory law), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ended courts of equity once and for all in 1938 at the federal level, and the states followed soon after.

So, at least 75% of the time, if you believe a law is unfair, your beef is with the legislature that wrote it and passed it, and at some level, the citizens that voted in that legislature.  The courts do have some ability to soften or harshen the application of written laws, but it's incremental at best, and their ability to dispense with crappy laws is limited.

 

[HenryJames 66128]

 

[nbmishoid 949]

Twice

I believe most of our institutions are largely populated by folks I wouldn’t have to my dinner table.  Not a majority, simply reflective of society today.  And legislation has this mostly cumulative effect where it is damn hard to reverse or improve any statute once in place.  All these desires for good go into the black hole of reality.  I appreciate your advice to not reflexively “blame” attorneys.  
All this suggests the system, the law, the legislative efforts, the enforcements or not, etc, will not get better prior to society getting better.

To the ledge, gents.

[TwiceHorn 31498]

14 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

I appreciate your advice to not reflexively “blame” attorneys.  

Actually, I didn't say this.  I'm used to it, blame away.  Just know that it's probably misplaced.

There are notable occasions when courts outside of the Supreme Court, like some of our good Trumpy district judges here in Texas, get a case tailor-made for "politics" and render a political decision.

And, you stumble across anecdotes of what seem to be horribly unfair decisions in tort cases or criminal cases or what have you.

But bear in mind that those tend to be rare outliers among hundreds of thousands of fair and reasonable decisions made every year in state and federal courts.

And then there are fewer individual decisions that come under fire, but the aggregate result of the court system, like incarceration nation.  I think most everyone that has studied it would say the first culprit is criminal legislation, but there are parts of the court system that help it right along, too:  prosecutors are too credulous of cops, prosecutors fear the "soft on crime" label, judges become too deferential to the prosecution, jaded, and themselves fear the "soft on crime" label.  There are too many plea bargains and not enough trials, so prosecutors are rewarded (or at least not penalized) for over-charging crimes.  There are not enough good public defenders (but there are more than you think).  Those last two are the direct result of a lack of court funding, which again goes back to the lege, and in turn to the electorate.  And the ignint, gullible electorate is mostly responsible for the first two (see "soft on crime").

Edited March 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:10 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, I think you're going to have to specify which "incompetent lawyers" you refer to.  Anecdotes aren't usually useful, but I can't think of too many hazardous lawyers that don't catch a case pretty quickly.

Those who do dirty by their clients get rousted with great regularity.

Those that aren't much good at what they do get shut down economically without doing too much harm to people.

And theres loads of shitty lawyers facing off against other shitty lawyers every day in the family courts in low stakes divorces and related matters.  

I'm not sure I'd say Sidney Powell is incompetent per se.  She used to have quite a solid appellate practice and was well respected, according to DDDad and what I can figure out.  She's a fairly special case I can't really come up with any historical parallel for.

 

 

What keeps coming to my mind is that original lawyer of that guy in Maryland that just got released after serving 20+ years in prison for murdering his girlfriend in high school.  Can't remember his name or his original lawyer's name (it was the first season of the podcast Serial), but she had a good reputation when she was hired, but ended up getting disbarred because of a general decline in her ability to effectively lawyer.  Then she died.  

[Gatorubet 30246]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

All this suggests the system, the law, the legislative efforts, the enforcements or not, etc, will not get better prior to society getting better.

To the ledge, gents.

“I am Brisket!!!”

[tx 3 putt 77093]

😂😂😂😂

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

what the fuck is that word salad supposed to mean?

[jimmyjazz 45978]

5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what the fuck is that word salad supposed to mean?

Apparently Fani T. Willis is one of the most dangerous and corrupt cities in the United States.

[Mdhorn 5974]

Georgia is trying to rush through laws to invalidate the prosecution.  He's a victim in trying to overturn the election, despite trying to overturn the election. 

[TwiceHorn 31498]

So, Fox thinks they have some good evidence in that The Money Ditchpig questioned whether they should give Dominion "equal time" in view of Powell's seeming true belief. https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-cites-newly-discovered-190428743.html

I don't think that works quite like Fox thinks it works.  The fact remains that they did not give Dominion equal time.

[Gil Bang 25975]

 

 

[Beau Vine 54256]

I guess the Colorado lawyers are pretty good at numbering exhibits?

[TwiceHorn 31498]

10 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I guess the Colorado lawyers are pretty good at numbering exhibits?

Different bar, different procedures, different acts (no lawsuit involved), different and very minor penalty.

[Captainant 27680]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Different bar, different procedures, different acts (no lawsuit involved), different and very minor penalty.

Yeah courts are happy to shake their finger at an attorney, but is loathe to do fuck all about anything that isn't stealing client funds. Lie to the courts, incite a riot to destroy our democratic process, submit false paperwork, all's fair amirite??

[Gap03 3308]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Is that like the legal equivalent of saying 10 Hail Marys?

 

[Gatorubet 30246]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yeah courts are happy to shake their finger at an attorney, but is loathe to do fuck all about anything that isn't stealing client funds. Lie to the courts, incite a riot to destroy our democratic process, submit false paperwork, all's fair amirite??

Jesus, but your posts are a beating to read.  What do you propose? Jail her ? Put her in stocks and throw vegetables at her? 

You simply ignored what Twice said about the perils of penalizing people for bringing novel or against established law theories.   I have a personal example. The Federal Fifth Circuit said that you cannot bring a sexual-harassment case involving the same gender victim and harasser.   A month later, I filed a same gender sexual harassment employment case in state court.  Defense counsel was outraged, and demanded that I be sanctioned for so willfully violating what was now black letter law.   The judge, however, said this was state court, not federal court, and it seemed incomprehensible that it was not just as alarming and unacceptable to be harassed by a person of your same sex as it was another sex.    

When I filed my suit there was not one case I could find in Louisiana law that supported me.  Louisiana courts usually deferred to federal interpretation of statutes when our law was essentially a copy of the federal statute.   But other than that 5th circuit federal case, I could find no case that I considered controlling, or that prohibited me from filing a case under that theory.  The statute was silent about the sex of the parties after all. So I filed. 

And no, they are not the same facts.  Yes, hers was worse.  But you need to consider the effect on the bar as a whole and the chilling negative effect that sanctioning every wrong new theory would have on the development of the law.   

You can enjoy your everything is black and white world because you do not live in our world - where everything is - at best - gray.  Laws are revised at least every year, and new decisions interpreting them drop daily.  

You are now mad she was censored after saying nothing ever is done.  If she was suspended, you would say she should have been disbarred.   If she was disbarred you would say she was protected by the Man from criminal consequences.    

TL; DR. No, you are not right.  You come off as a person who does not play an instrument telling the orchestra they are doing it wrong. Now, maybe the orchestra’s woodwind needed work, but you yelling “Do something!” does not help

[TwiceHorn 31498]

Ellis agreed to her sanction, as well.  Frequently, lawyers are chastened and do that. 

Obviously Powell not so much. 

I hadn't given much thought to Texas' new disciplinary scheme that gets the courts involved early and often.  Clearly here it is a disadvantage for "us," but it was probably inevitable. 

[Captainant 27680]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

You are now mad she was censored after saying nothing ever is done.  If she was suspended, you would say she should have been disbarred.   If she was disbarred you would say she was protected by the Man from criminal consequences.    

That's a lot of "if"s to ignore the fact that we're more than two years past the date of the crime and the worst thing that's happened is she lost her fraudulent court cases. Tell me I'm being unreasonable all you want, but there's a shitload of fascists from Jan6 still going about their mission to dismantle our democracy. 

Sorry that's such a concerning thing to me?

[nbmishoid 949]

Captain

Perhaps unsaid here is that justice might otherwise be served outside of the law.  At any rate, that idea is out there and galloping.  One might imagine that with sufficient frustration justice comes to look more important than the law.  I don’t support these ideas (whatever that means), but mounting injustices and mounting frustration are not good for society.   Something like climate change.  When will the talking stop?

[Gatorubet 30246]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's a lot of "if"s to ignore the fact that we're more than two years past the date of the crime and the worst thing that's happened is she lost her fraudulent court cases. Tell me I'm being unreasonable all you want, but there's a shitload of fascists from Jan6 still going about their mission to dismantle our democracy. 

Sorry that's such a concerning thing to me?

Help me out. As far as I can tell, you blame her for the J6 insurrection, and watch her to face severe consequences as you include her in “the crime”.     If we follow that theory, then every politician who voiced support of Trump’s challenge of the election is also criminally liable. In addition, every conservative news outlet on radio and TV and print who supported (or did not denounce) the big lie election steal is also responsible for the January 6 insurrection.   

I hate to break it to you, but that is not how the law treats causation in criminal matters.    it follows that if stupid Trump supporters went on Facebook, and announced that “the election was stolen. Look at what the right wing press and all of these politicians and lawyers said, so it has to be true”, then they are criminally liable as well.   I understand what you want.  I understand that their behavior undermines our government and the foundations upon which our government is based.  But under your causation theory, a third of the country should be in jail. Good luck with that.   Me telling you it won’t happen is not an absence of me agreeing with a terrible problem it is. 

[Captainant 27680]

39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Help me out. As far as I can tell, you blame her for the J6 insurrection, and watch her to face severe consequences as you include her in “the crime”.

...no? She played a massive part in the insurrection by filing (count em!) More than SIXTY fraudulent cases. Those cases were among the grievances that fueled J6,  and provided the air of legal plausibility that empowered it to become mainstream in the republican party. 

Now I'm not saying that she is responsible for ALL of that. That's a ridiculous assertion and lazy attempt to ignore my point. 

But I AM saying that to give her zero meaningful consequences, or even a reduction of privileges in the court system she just abused, sends a strong signal that others should keep fucking around. Because our legal system cannot make them find out

Edited March 9, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31498]

20 hours ago, Captainant said:

...no? She played a massive part in the insurrection by filing (count em!) More than SIXTY fraudulent cases. Those cases were among the grievances that fueled J6,  and provided the air of legal plausibility that empowered it to become mainstream in the republican party. 

Now I'm not saying that she is responsible for ALL of that. That's a ridiculous assertion and lazy attempt to ignore my point. 

But I AM saying that to give her zero meaningful consequences, or even a reduction of privileges in the court system she just abused, sends a strong signal that others should keep fucking around. Because our legal system cannot make them find out

She was sanctioned in the MIchigan federal district court.  She was not sanctioned in Wisconsin because the defendants were slow to make a sanctions motion and the case had already been dismissed.  They were also slow to do it in Michigan too, which may become an issue on appeal.  Apparently no defendant in her Georgia case asked for sanctions.

That's been a bit of a common theme to all of this, the defendants have failed to make sanctions motions, or timely ones.  Part of that is that the defendants are just happy to get the damned things dismissed in the first place, and another party of it is likely the hully gully of dealing with a lawsuit like this.

Unfortunately, Powell is able to raise the hully gully of trying to lodge an election lawsuit as an excuse for being fast and loose with facts and investigation of them.  That is an unfortunate reality that will get some traction.

You also state that the legal system categorically cannot "make them find out."  That's untrue and uninformed.  It's a process, you have to go through the process. If you don't do the process correctly, you won't get the results you want.  The defendants in Powell's kraken suits, except in Michigan, didn't invoke the sanctions process or do it properly.  The Texas Bar didn't try its discipline case properly, at least as of yet.  It ain't over.

 

[Captainant 27680]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You also state that the legal system categorically cannot "make them find out."  That's untrue and uninformed.  It's a process, you have to go through the process. If you don't do the process correctly, you won't get the results you want.  The defendants in Powell's kraken suits, except in Michigan, didn't invoke the sanctions process or do it properly.  The Texas Bar didn't try its discipline case properly, at least as of yet.  It ain't over.

What is driving me fucking insane is that this is an asymmetric conflict. Trump et al don't give two fucks about the law and procedure and facts and will abuse those mechanisms to further their desired outcomes. Courts and prosecutors are limited to only whatever tools they had prior to the threat of trumpisms blitzkrieg against democracy, which are those same mechanisms the fascists are happy and eager to abuse. 

It's been more than two years since the fascists attempted to interrupt the transition of power. We've had a fucking election cycle and the fascists GAINED SEATS and are starting to attempt to rewrite the facts of what happened.

I guess in the legal world it's ok to wait years for results or even a single affirmative step of progress, but in the real world where we have to actually live with the consequences of that sluggishness, that's fucking outrageous. It empowers the fascists to keep going and to move faster. Read a history book about how this sort of thing tends to go

[RomaVicta 29932]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:13 PM, Gil Bang said:

 

 

That'll show those fascist anti-republic forces!

[atomheartbevo 89734]

Quote

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, says Republican Chairman James Comer has abandoned efforts to get former President Donald Trump's financial documents while quietly digging into the finances of President Joe Biden's son. 

In a letter to Comer released on Monday, Raskin, of Maryland, said it had come to his attention that Comer, of Kentucky, had coordinated with Trump's lawyers to block the committee from receiving documents from Mazars USA, Trump's former accounting firm. 

Quote

Raskin argued that Comer's alleged decision to halt the production of documents was hypocritical because he had also issued a subpoena related to an investigation into Biden's son Hunter. 

"You appear to have engaged in these efforts to prevent the production of evidence of former President Trump’s misconduct during his time in office while simultaneously issuing an invasive and overbroad subpoena to private individuals as part of an investigation targeting the business dealings of family members of President Biden who have never held public office," Raskin said.

 

[hpslugga 4062]

^
Well wouldn’t you know who won the pony?

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

“Raskin alluded to documents the committee received from Mazars under the Democratic majority last fall that revealed authoritarian governments like China's and Saudi Arabia's spent hundreds of dollars at Trump-owned properties when he was president.”

I’m sure that’s a typo and is meant to read “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

[TwiceHorn 31498]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Apparently Mazars heard first from Trump's lawyers that they didn't need to keep producing documents, not from the Committee.

That's some shit.

[Captainant 27680]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apparently Mazars heard first from Trump's lawyers that they didn't need to keep producing documents, not from the Committee.

That's some shit.

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, there's not enough evidence to do anything right now (I have it on very good authority). We'll have to wait a decade or two before there's enough political will to actually punish trumpco

[TwiceHorn 31498]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, there's not enough evidence to do anything right now (I have it on very good authority). We'll have to wait a decade or two before there's enough political will to actually punish trumpco

Yawn.

Edited March 15, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31498]

So, back to the Sidney Powell case.  The Bar has one week left (March 22) to either file a motion for new trial or appeal the summary judgment in her discipline case.

I can't pretend to know what they're going to do.  It's a bit like reading tea leaves looking at the docket, but it does seem to me that the Bar was having some trouble developing good evidence that ol Sid, as opposed to one of the several people who actually drafted the complaint and gathered the "evidence," actually knew that she was pushing false theories and evidence in support and I think it's going to be necessary to prove that she, and not Juli Haller or Howard Kleinhendler or someone else, KNEW that the evidence she was pushing and the allegations made were false and not merely unlikely and subject to proof.  Signing off on a pleading will subject you to sanctions, but maybe not bar discipline.

On the other hand, from what I can piece together from the record, despite the Bar's having fucked up the exhibits, it looks like this summary judgment can be reversed.  The ordinary rule in summary judgment is that pleadings are not "competent" summary judgment evidence, but that's when the pleadings themselves, their allegations, are offered as evidence, that is, as being true. When the pleadings are from another case and tend to demonstrate the falsity of the pleadings, as seems to be the case here, they should be valid summary judgment evidence and should constitute a scintilla, at least, of evidence that Powell knowingly presented false evidence and allegations to a court.

I think the Bar can win this battle, but may have doubts about winning the war.  As mentioned previously, under the new disciplinary rules, the Bar is probably finding itself in court more often than it used to.  That may spread them a little thin and make them more conscious of the use of their resources.  It will be interesting to see.

Edited March 15, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27680]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The ordinary rule in summary judgment is that pleadings are not "competent" summary judgment evidence, but that's when the pleadings themselves, their allegations, are offered as evidence, that is, as being true. When the pleadings are from another case and tend to demonstrate the falsity of the pleadings, as seems to be the case here, they should be valid summary judgment evidence and should constitute a scintilla, at least, of evidence that Powell knowingly presented false evidence and allegations to a court.

So powell has a real chance of successfully using the "yes I'm actually that stupid" defense to retain her TX bar accreditation? 

 

Yikes.

  

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the Bar can win this battle, but may have doubts about winning the war.  As mentioned previously, under the new disciplinary rules, the Bar is probably finding itself in court more often than it used to.  That may spread them a little thin and make them more conscious of the use of their resources.  It will be interesting to see.

Yeah, almost as if changes were made to make it more difficult to punish bad actors who are abusing our legal system to further their attempt at fascism. Weird.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31498]

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So powell has a real chance of successfully using the "yes I'm actually that stupid" defense to retain her TX bar accreditation? 

 

Yikes.

  

Yeah, almost as if changes were made to make it more difficult to punish bad actors who are abusing our legal system to further their attempt at fascism. Weird.

Yeah, she probably does.  Her lunacy and delusion can be a barrier to proof that she KNEW.  Really a bigger issue, though, I think, is the large clown show that was actually putting together the complaint.  From what I see from the Bar case, as well as the sanctions hearing in Michigan and the appeal thereof, Powell has seemed to distance herself from some of the more obviously untrue evidence and allegations.  Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that an attorney signing a pleading verifies a number of things, including the veracity of the allegations and evidence.  So it's irrelevant whether the signing attorney actually knew of their falsity.

I don't think the Rules of Professional Conduct impose that "vicarious liability," instead they actually have to prove that the attorney KNEW.

Your insistence that every law and rule change that winds up favoring some shitbag like Powell is some endorsement of fascism is idiotic.

Previously, every grievance filed against a lawyer went to a private grievance committee composed of lawyers and laypeople.  The committee decided whether the lawyer committed a violation and what would be the sanction.  The lawyer could either accept that sanction or "appeal" it by going to the district court.  One of the reasons you wouldn't appeal it is that the grievance committee process is largely private and any wrongdoing is kept pretty "low key," while taking it to court makes everything public.  On the other hand, the grievance committee didn't have to follow rules of evidence or procedure.

Now the lawyer has the option of going to court instead of going before the grievance committee at all.  I don't really know why the Bar changed its rules, that hasn't been discussed much.  In some sense it's six of one half a dozen of the other because under either scheme, the "judgment" of the grievance committee could be ignored, now it's just a little more explicit.  The net result, though, seems to be more actual discipline lawsuits filed by/prosecuted by the Bar.  And that means more opportunity for procedural fuckups like happened in the Powell case.

Edited March 15, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29355]

On 3/9/2023 at 10:48 AM, Gatorubet said:

Jesus, but your posts are a beating to read.  What do you propose? Jail her ? Put her in stocks and throw vegetables at her? 

 

Just speaking for myself here, that'd be a pretty good result.