the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Most cases involve disputes about two different and non-compatible versions of the facts.   

We do not charge 50% of the parties and their lawyers with perjury because one side lost 

So if your client says she had the green light, you still bring the suit even if the other driver and a disinterested eye witness say she had the red. 

You might lose, but you might not.  

The key is, do you know for sure the client is lying when she says  she had the green light?    If the client says she had the red light, but she will say it was green in court, a lawyer bringing that case will likely suffer significant sanctions if that ever comes out.

If there are 10 disinterested witnesses saying your client ran the red light, there is a high likelihood you will lose, but the lawyer does not know what color the light was before the accident. And our job is not to believe the other side ‘s witnesses.    You will not be sanctioned if you bring that case to trial and the judge or jury does not believe your client.

So the question about Sydney’s filings is whether her factual situation resembles the first scenario closer than the second scenario.  Because the facts and the allegations under our system are to be reviewed and determined under the crucible of trial. Whether she is sanctioned will require an investigation of how readily apparent it was that the allegations were false, and more importantly, that she was absolutely aware that they were false when she made them.

Put another way, I should suffer no discipline because I believe my client had the green light when there is no definitive proof that my client is lying and the light was really red.   If however there were three security cameras who caught the accident in real time, and all three showed that my client had the red light, and I knew that, then I should be sanctioned for bringing the suit.
I’m not sure if this helps. I’m just trying to explain that it is not black and white.

 

Yes I understand this.  But anyone stupid enough to believe a letter written to them by a person who claims to be beheaded and who got their information "from the wind" is not a competent person and should be removed from practice on the grounds that she is no longer mentally capable of advocating for any client. In this case, if she truly believed the story she was telling she should be in a loony bin.  If she truly didn't believe it, she should be sanctioned severely for filing multiple cases despite knowing she was not telling the truth.  Fit for the loony bin doesn't appear to be a sanctionable offense, though, based on what you lawyers are telling us.

This isn't a dispute about facts in a he said/she said fashion, this is a dispute about facts where the reason she supposedly believed the losing fact pattern was because a beheaded person told her about them in a letter, based on what that beheaded person heard in the wind.  Let's keep in mind, if you are fucking beheaded you can't hear shit anywhere because you don't have ears anymore, even if you could somehow survive a beheading.

[Gatorubet 30271]

4 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yes I understand this.  But anyone stupid enough to believe a letter written to them by a person who claims to be beheaded and who got their information "from the wind" is not a competent person and should be removed from practice on the grounds that she is no longer mentally capable of advocating for any client. In this case, if she truly believed the story she was telling she should be in a loony bin.  If she truly didn't believe it, she should be sanctioned severely for filing multiple cases despite knowing she was not telling the truth.  Fit for the loony bin doesn't appear to be a sanctionable offense, though, based on what you lawyers are telling us.

This isn't a dispute about facts in a he said/she said fashion, this is a dispute about facts where the reason she supposedly believed the losing fact pattern was because a beheaded person told her about them in a letter, based on what that beheaded person heard in the wind.  Let's keep in mind, if you are fucking beheaded you can't hear shit anywhere because you don't have ears anymore, even if you could somehow survive a beheading.

You appear to have issues with a certain segment of our society. And the respectful term is cranium challenged.

Also, this indicates the Wind does talk.  

Bible song. Stop attacking Christianity.

 

Say a person tells me that they were formally beheaded - and the wind told them a candidate did not live in the district were they were running.

Say another person tells me that the candidate lived in a different district, and provided video of the candidate living in that house, and another video in the district where the candidate claims to live with a “For Rent” sign in front of the empty house. 

if I put in my petition to disqualify the candidate only the information from the second person, the fact that the first nutter told me something is entirely immaterial.    Now, if I put that bullshit that the first person told me in the actual pleading - then I have a problem.

My understanding is that Sydney wrote that email to Fox with the crazy shit, but I was not aware that any pleading she filed contained the beheading/Wind stuff.   She is a tricksy Hobbit who may have been relying on other Officers of the Court who vouched for the info used in the filings she cut and pasted - or let them be the filer - or both.  That might give her some cover.   

 

[Beau Vine 54312]

2 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Let's keep in mind, if you are fucking beheaded you can't hear shit anywhere because you don't have ears anymore, even if you could somehow survive a beheading.

'Tis but a flesh wound!

[Sawbonz 27580]

The idea that a government regulatory body charged with protecting the public at large from professionals engaging in bad / dangerous conduct should be held to the standards of evidence required to obtain a civil judgment, much less a criminal guilty verdict, is absurd. And this goes double for physician standards of conduct and practice. Oh and guess why we physicians can’t “police our own?” You got it - lawyers 

[Beau Vine 54312]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The idea that a government regulatory body charged with protecting the public at large from professionals engaging in bad / dangerous conduct should be held to the standards of evidence required to obtain a civil judgment, much less a criminal guilty verdict, is absurd.

[safe sex 11738]

20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The idea that a government regulatory body charged with protecting the public at large from professionals engaging in bad / dangerous conduct should be held to the standards of evidence required to obtain a civil judgment, much less a criminal guilty verdict, is absurd. And this goes double for physician standards of conduct and practice. Oh and guess why we physicians can’t “police our own?” You got it - lawyers 

Meanwhile nurses take the heat and get put in jail for being the on the lowest rung of a systemically rotting ladder while the people who set that nurse up to fail and tried to cover up the patient death, relax with a new year end bonus. 

(At least I'm not able to find any information on penalities suffered by Vanderbilt hospital administrators. Will retract if it's out there)

[Sawbonz 27580]

5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Powell knew what she was doing. 

Did anyone hear her say “I know what I’m doing?” Do we have any documents where she wrote “I know what I’m doing” where she signed it and got it notarized?

No? Well we’re SOL I guess

[Gatorubet 30271]

35 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The idea that a government regulatory body charged with protecting the public at large from professionals engaging in bad / dangerous conduct should be held to the standards of evidence required to obtain a civil judgment, much less a criminal guilty verdict, is absurd. And this goes double for physician standards of conduct and practice. Oh and guess why we physicians can’t “police our own?” You got it - lawyers 

I assume from your post above that it should “go double“ that when a doctor is accused of malpractice or a breach of the standard of care - that the doctor should not require the accusers to prove their case at least “more likely than not”.

I’m not sure you realize how ridiculous your take is.  Then I read the bold part and realized you must be drinking.  Because the medical community is not rich or powerful enough to hire lobbyists to pass laws allowing doctors to police themselves.

Right. 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

The idea that a government regulatory body charged with protecting the public at large from professionals engaging in bad / dangerous conduct should be held to the standards of evidence required to obtain a civil judgment, much less a criminal guilty verdict, is absurd. And this goes double for physician standards of conduct and practice. Oh and guess why we physicians can’t “police our own?” You got it - lawyers 

Interesting point, but at least for disbarment or suspension, the constitution comes pretty close to requiring it.  It's not as unquestionable as a criminal case, but it's close.

[Captainant 27689]

I gotta say, it's really strange seeing twice implicitly arguing for powells constitutional right to abuse the court system to perpetuate a fascist coup attempt. I can't imagine the constitution requires a defendant attorney to literally say "I'm attempting to defraud the courts" in order to hold them accountable 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Captainant

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I assume from your post above that it should “go double“ that when a doctor is accused of malpractice or a breach of the standard of care - that the doctor should not require the accusers to prove their case at least “more likely than not”.

I’m not sure you realize how ridiculous your take is.  Then I read the bold part and realized you must be drinking.  Because the medical community is not rich or powerful enough to hire lobbyists to pass laws allowing doctors to police themselves.

Right. 

 

 

 

Did you read my post? Do you know how malpractice is adjudicated? It’s not in front of the TMB, which is the analog to the state bar. To my knowledge no one here is discussing a malpractice case against Powell

 

and as far as hiring “lobbyists” who tf do you think those guys are?

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting point, but at least for disbarment or suspension, the constitution comes pretty close to requiring it.  It's not as unquestionable as a criminal case, but it's close.

Where does the constitution mention disbarment of lawyers?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sawbonz

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I gotta say, it's really strange seeing twice implicitly arguing for powells constitutional right to abuse the court system to perpetuate a fascist coup attempt. I can't imagine the constitution requires a defendant attorney to literally say "I'm attempting to defraud the courts" in order to hold them accountable 

Defense attorney puts his client on the stand and asks "Sir, did you kill those twenty school kids?"

Client, "No."

Legal scholars, "Well, we can't prove he's lying so he must be found not guilty.  Ahhh well, nevertheless."

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I gotta say, it's really strange seeing twice implicitly arguing for powells constitutional right to abuse the court system to perpetuate a fascist coup attempt. I can't imagine the constitution requires a defendant attorney to literally say "I'm attempting to defraud the courts" in order to hold them accountable 

Yawn.

I'm fucking sick of you mischaracterizing what I say.

I am not arguing FOR Sidney Powell in any way shape or form.

I am telling you, along with most of the other ignoramuses on this thread why the Texas Bar has at least temporarily failed to discipline Sidney Powell.

It's because they failed, at least procedurally, to prove that she knowingly misstated facts to the courts and/or knowingly submitted false evidence.  The knowingly standard excludes "should have known."

I didn't write the laws you fuckstick.  Neither did any fascist lovers, dickbag.

We're stuck with the laws as they are written, in 1983 by the ABA.  

So, to discipline Sidney Powell you gotta prove she violated a rule.

You have no fucking idea what the rules are and even less idea how to prove a violation of them.

If you read what I said, you might.  Instead, you develop "implications" in your fevered brain about what I say.  And yo ujust bloviate with your sandy pussy about me and how the Bar and anyone else that doesn't satisfy your personal whims are all fascists and fascist lovers.

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

Go.

Fuck.

Your,

Own.

Face.

You bloody cunt.

Fudge Nuggets too.

You two, especially, are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between an explanation and a defense.

Edited March 17, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Did you read my post? Do you know how malpractice is adjudicated? It’s not in front of the TMB, which is the analog to the state bar. To my knowledge no one here is discussing a malpractice case against Powell

 

and as far as hiring “lobbyists” who tf do you think those guys are?

Where does the constitution mention disbarment of lawyers?

Don't be fatuous Jeffery.

It's the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  It doesn't apply with full force as it would in a criminal case, but with at least partial force to disbarment proceedings, which have been ruled to be quasi-criminal in nature.  Something less than disbarment or suspension, it's nelly bar the door.

40 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Defense attorney puts his client on the stand and asks "Sir, did you kill those twenty school kids?"

Client, "No."

Legal scholars, "Well, we can't prove he's lying so he must be found not guilty.  Ahhh well, nevertheless."

Hurr durr.  Smart people are making petulant idiots of themselves on this thread.

Edited March 17, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27580]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  It doesn't apply with full force as it would in a criminal case, but with at least partial force to disbarment proceedings, which have been ruled to be quasi-criminal in nature.  Something less than disbarment or suspension, it's nelly bar the door

Quasi criminal? Sounds like bullshit to me. You don’t have a constitutional right to work as an attorney, or in any other occupation. The state definitely has a duty to protect its citizenry though. 

[safe sex 11738]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yawn.

I'm fucking sick of you mischaracterizing what I say.

I am not arguing FOR Sidney Powell in any way shape or form.

I am telling you, along with most of the other ignoramuses on this thread why the Texas Bar has at least temporarily failed to discipline Sidney Powell.

It's because they failed, at least procedurally, to prove that she knowingly misstated facts to the courts and/or knowingly submitted false evidence.  The knowingly standard excludes "should have known."

I didn't write the laws you fuckstick.  Neither did any fascist lovers, dickbag.

We're stuck with the laws as they are written, in 1983 by the ABA.  

So, to discipline Sidney Powell you gotta prove she violated a rule.

You have no fucking idea what the rules are and even less idea how to prove a violation of them.

If you read what I said, you might.  Instead, you develop "implications" in your fevered brain about what I say.  And yo ujust bloviate with your sandy pussy about me and how the Bar and anyone else that doesn't satisfy your personal whims are all fascists and fascist lovers.

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

Go.

Fuck.

Your,

Own.

Face.

You bloody cunt.

Fudge Nuggets too.

What an edit from "yawn" lmao

[TwiceHorn 31512]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Quasi criminal? Sounds like bullshit to me. You don’t have a constitutional right to work as an attorney, or in any other occupation. The state definitely has a duty to protect its citizenry though. 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/544/

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

What an edit from "yawn" lmao

It pisses me off. Obviously.

[Sawbonz 27580]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/544/

Bullshit lawyers covering for lawyers. 

no wonder we are fucked

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31512]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Bullshit lawyers covering for lawyers. 

Maybe so.  I didn't make it up, I didn't say it's right or wrong, but there it is.  From Wm. O. Douglas no less.

Edited March 17, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe so.  I didn't make it up, I didn't say it's right or wrong, but there it is.  From Wm. O. Douglas no less.

It’s ok. You can say it. It’s wrong. and it’s going to be the undoing of our society. You can’t have laws and rulings like that and not have people acting in good faith. And one whole side no longer acts in good faith

[Captainant 27689]

It's gonna be a super fun time in 2024/25 when the fascists roll out the same playbook and we still havent done anything about the first attempt, or even taken the smallest measure to punish the orchestrators of the first attempt. 

Keep in mind: it was powells kRaKeN lawsuits that was the basis for the vote to delay and send back to the states that our congresspeople and senator voted for. This is what we're pissed about. There's literally nothing to stop them from trying again in 2024. We just have to hope the fascists care about decorum and good faith as much as at the rest of the fine upstanding barristers of the bar. Because the legal profession sure as hell doesn't seem equipped to do anything about an overtly bad actor in its own ranks.

She's still allowed to practice law and continue to spread her poison as if nothing at all fucking happened. I just don't understand how you're so blasé about it happening right in front of you to make a mockery of your profession, twice.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

42 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

It’s ok. You can say it. It’s wrong. and it’s going to be the undoing of our society. You can’t have laws and rulings like that and not have people acting in good faith. And one whole side no longer acts in good faith

I will take this opportunity to remind you that a bunch of lawyers made sure that Sidney Powell and her idiot cohorts got exactly nowhere with their four bullshit Kraken lawsuits.

And also that a bunch of other lawyers trashed the other 56-someodd bullshit lawsuits.

If we were a more sensical society, that would be enough to satisfy us that Sidney Powell is full of shit and unworthy of consideration.  

And, of course, even disbarment isn't likely to stem the tide of idiot fascists, just like Trump going to jail won't, either.  And might not even keep him from winning a second term, God forbid.

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's gonna be a super fun time in 2024/25 when the fascists roll out the same playbook and we still havent done anything about the first attempt, or even taken the smallest measure to punish the orchestrators of the first attempt. 

Keep in mind: it was powells kRaKeN lawsuits that was the basis for the vote to delay and send back to the states that our congresspeople and senator voted for. This is what we're pissed about. There's literally nothing to stop them from trying again in 2024. We just have to hope the fascists care about decorum and good faith as much as at the rest of the fine upstanding barristers of the bar. Because the legal profession sure as hell doesn't seem equipped to do anything about an overtly bad actor in its own ranks.

She's still allowed to practice law and continue to spread her poison as if nothing at all fucking happened. I just don't understand how you're so blasé about it happening right in front of you to make a mockery of your profession, twice.

They're going to do that anyway.  Disbarment won't make a shit.  More witch hunts, and "weaponization."

I'd like to see it, but I have known that it might not actually happen from jump.  The Texas Bar turn of events was somewhat surprising, though.

Also, all of Powell's suits were dismissed in November and December 2020, weeks ahead of January 6.  Which is more evidence that it doesn't make a shit.

I agree that hers and the other 50 plus lawsuits were part and parcel of the insurrection/coup, but their dismissal had no effect on the stupid/insane hordes and neither will Powell's disbarment.  Rational outcomes don't make a shit to these people, Brisket's been telling you that for a couple of years now.

I'm not blase about it, I'm looking at the legal strategies and processes and telling you how and why they're coming out as they are.  I'm being a technician about it.  In that role, it does me zero good to get all inflamed about it.  I'm just reporting on what I see.

I'm focused on the process, not necessarily the outcome, because I understand that in most cases we haven't reached the outcome.  I'm massively curious about the process and share what I pick up closely observing it.

Edited March 17, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[safe sex 11738]

I'm curious, @TwiceHorn, because I've read a lot of words from you about the way things are (and I appreciate all of your intellectual and emotional labor in responding to all of us laypersons), but I can't remember reading anything from you about the way you think things should be. Are there reforms you're able to think of that could help in this clearly destructive, albeit legal, abuse of the legal system from Trump. Are those reforms remotely feasible, assuming there is ever an opposition party that acts in good faith again?

[TwiceHorn 31512]

45 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I'm curious, @TwiceHorn, because I've read a lot of words from you about the way things are (and I appreciate all of your intellectual and emotional labor in responding to all of us laypersons), but I can't remember reading anything from you about the way you think things should be. Are there reforms you're able to think of that could help in this clearly destructive, albeit legal, abuse of the legal system from Trump. Are those reforms remotely feasible, assuming there is ever an opposition party that acts in good faith again?

I've said many times that I think we lack a robust set of criminal laws to deal with offenses against the "government order" by government officials.

I can't tell you exactly what I think some more laws should look like, but I'd be happy to discuss it.  We have one "treason" statute and none of this is treason, which requires the country to be at war or for the traitors to commit acts of war.  We have one statute called "seditious conspiracy" and conspiracies are always hard to prove, nothing for seditious acts by individuals.  And one statute called "insurrection" and, as much as we bandy that term around, I don't think anyone has seriously raised that as a criminal charge against any of these clowns, because it uses the terms "rebellion" and "insurrection" in parallel, again invoking the kind of armed, belligerent sort of thing as treason.    We could probably vary that up some.

One of the bigger problems with all of this is that a lot of the offensive activity here is pretty similar to "speech."  You can draw distinctions all day between what speech should be legal and what speech should not, and what is protected speech and what isn't, and they're valid distinctions as far as they go.  But it has been notoriously hard for our legislatures to outlaw certain types of speech because they always wind up outlawing some legitimate speech by accident, and that means the whole thing gets pitched.  And softening up the First Amendment is probably not where we want to go with that.  See this provocative debate between Popehat and Elie Mystal. 

A kind of related problem is that some of the offensive actions are also pretty close to legitimate functions of government officials.  Like, they are called on by the Constitution and Electoral Count Act to count the electoral votes and receive objections to them.  You can again draw distinctions between the crazy shit Eastman/Trump/etc. were trying to do and how it's supposed to work, but it can be very difficult to define a crime in that "chink" or crack, either with existing law or by drafting a new one.  We do have some changes in the Electoral Count Act coming to make that a little less hazy, at least, but it doesn't define any new crimes or criminal acts, just makes it clearer what's legitimate and what's a coup.

So when you try to criminalize things that lie in this gray area between legitimate and totally illegitimate, here there be tygers.

Executive privilege is legitimate, but hasn't been used and abused as much in the entire history of our country as it has in the last six years, so its contours have been hazy, but they're getting clearer thanks to Trump, and not in favor of the executive.  Separation of powers, where this stuff comes from, is one of the most fundamental features of our three branches of government, and you hated it when Trump used it to defy congress.  You're gonna love it when Biden uses it to defy Gym Jordan, although he'll be less of a dick about it and has a lot less to hide.

Finally, I don't actually believe that the bar is a protection racket for lawyers.  I am biased.  Could it be improved, sure.  I'm not sure I'm totally down with creating some Star Chamber that has the power to disbar lawyers without judicial review or due process.  Some fucker like Thomas J. Henry might get control of it and try to disbar Thujone because he's jealous of his skillz.

Also, maybe a bigger picture thought.  Although Trump and his general lack of integrity and widespread criminality is annoying as fuck, it's not so much Trump himself as his 70 millions some odd supporters that are the problem.  Trump is kind of the symptom.  We might be better off trying to figure out how to unfuck them than trying to throw future Trump types in prison.  Because when we get down to it, short of executing him, none of this will make a shit to the magats, and given the Q types and JFK, even executing him might not.  And I'm opposed to the death penalty, period, even for Trump.

Edited March 17, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TheStoicPaisano 9922]

New twist!

 

[Sawbonz 27580]

“Joey Tacos”

 

there is video evidence of him acknowledging he knows the rule he is breaking and he is actually discussing the matter at hand. 
 

I’m sure there is another rule preventing him from being held accountable. Can’t wait to hear what it is and its justification 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Sawbonz

[tx 3 putt 77226]

Very on point ….

 

[Chewbacca 7780]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

“Joey Tacos”

 

there is video evidence of him acknowledging he knows the rule he is breaking and he is actually discussing the matter at hand. 
 

I’m sure there is another rule preventing him from being held accountable. Can’t wait to hear what it is and its justification 

It's all very technical.  You wouldn't understand.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I will take this opportunity to remind you that a bunch of lawyers made sure that Sidney Powell and her idiot cohorts got exactly nowhere with their four bullshit Kraken lawsuits.

We should consider ourselves lucky they didn't put the morons that don't even know how to number their exhibits properly in charge of those suits.

Thankful for small wonders, I guess.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because when we get down to it, short of executing him, none of this will make a shit to the magats, and given the Q types and JFK, even executing him might not. 

We should find out, just to see.

[C-Man 27238]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I will take this opportunity to remind you that a bunch of lawyers made sure that Sidney Powell and her idiot cohorts got exactly nowhere with their four bullshit Kraken lawsuits.

And also that a bunch of other lawyers trashed the other 56-someodd bullshit lawsuits.

If we were a more sensical society, that would be enough to satisfy us that Sidney Powell is full of shit and unworthy of consideration.  

And, of course, even disbarment isn't likely to stem the tide of idiot fascists, just like Trump going to jail won't, either.  And might not even keep him from winning a second term, God forbid.

They're going to do that anyway.  Disbarment won't make a shit.  More witch hunts, and "weaponization."

I'd like to see it, but I have known that it might not actually happen from jump.  The Texas Bar turn of events was somewhat surprising, though.

Also, all of Powell's suits were dismissed in November and December 2020, weeks ahead of January 6.  Which is more evidence that it doesn't make a shit.

I agree that hers and the other 50 plus lawsuits were part and parcel of the insurrection/coup, but their dismissal had no effect on the stupid/insane hordes and neither will Powell's disbarment.  Rational outcomes don't make a shit to these people, Brisket's been telling you that for a couple of years now.

I'm not blase about it, I'm looking at the legal strategies and processes and telling you how and why they're coming out as they are.  I'm being a technician about it.  In that role, it does me zero good to get all inflamed about it.  I'm just reporting on what I see.

I'm focused on the process, not necessarily the outcome, because I understand that in most cases we haven't reached the outcome.  I'm massively curious about the process and share what I pick up closely observing it.

So, basically ... 

[Gatorubet 30271]

looks like Trump avoid indictment again dammit. You guys were right.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

Praise Jeebus.  It appeared belatedly, but State Bar of Texas filed a Motion for New Trial timely on March 24 in the Powell disbarment case.

 

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/DocumentViewer/Embedded/fnt9AvAkWVR-cwst7tOyPcbWpiRZlSNxmr8c-UoRtS6L1cAlD7sF-XIJ2yJRQjLzbrp4cLkTnKSCv2bHYoHd8g2?p=0

 

This link may not last.

[nbmishoid 962]

Even you are surprised

[safe sex 11738]

It was starting to feel like a purposeful fuck-up

[TwiceHorn 31512]

2 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Even you are surprised

I was surprised they were going to let it go.  But as I have said, under the newish disciplinary scheme, the Bar finds itself in court a lot more often than it used to.  In the past when things went to court, they were rare and serious and the Bar was "out for blood."  I really don't have a feel for how they treat it now that they may have to litigate the first pass at every disciplinary case.

Let me clarify.  In the past, every grievance went through a vetting process and, if it alleged a rule violation, was initially ruled  upon by a grievance committee composed of lawyers and laypeople after a hearing.  The lawyer could either accept the ruling and sanction ordered by the committee or take the case to district court for a trial.  The Bar thus was in the position, more or less, of defending the grievance committee's work.  They pursued those cases vigorously.

Now, after the vetting, the lawyer can either go to the grievance committee or take it to court.  So the Bar may find itself pursuing a kind of shitty complaint by a layperson that has yet to be ruled upon except in the most cursory way.  I'm not saying this is one of them, but that is the kind of situation the Bar finds itself in these days.  They've no doubt had to hire a lot more litigators than in the past, and quality and enthusiasm can vary.

I knew a couple of chicks that were bar litigators under the old system and they were pretty fierce true believers coming for your law license. And I have personally litigated against the Bar (not for myself thank God), and found the Bar lawyers to be the same.  No idea what they're like now.

Edited April 4, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31512]

A data point also on the court's original ruling.  It had said that the court contacted the Bar about the jacked up exhibits and the Bar declined to fix them.  There was an email in the record previously where a clerk had emailed the Bar about one exhibit being "turned sideways."  The Bar said that's how Powell filed it, so no correction was necessary.

The Bar elaborated that that was the ONLY communication from the court, not some additional communication like "hey, your exhibits don't match up with the brief, do you want to fix it"?  So, the court having said that in its order was, shall we say, inaccurate or disingenuous.

One of the reasons this is fucked up is Powell filed at least two motions for summary judgment, and, instead of ruling on them one at a time, the court ruled on all of them at once.  It appears that, taking all of the summary judgments together, and the Bar's responses, all of the proper evidence was properly before the Court, even if mislabeled in the Bar's last response.

There appears, then, to be some "playing fast and loose" by her honor.  Could be a good-faith mistake arising from a dirty record, could be hostility to the case.  I know nothing about her honor, but I do know of the firm she's from and they tend to be pretty good folks.  But my knowledge of them precedes the current political climate, and it might not surprise me to find out that they harbor a number of Trumpkins. They do have an office in Frisco and there are a disturbing number of aggy there.

[Captainant 27689]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was surprised they were going to let it go.  But as I have said, under the newish disciplinary scheme, the Bar finds itself in court a lot more often than it used to.  In the past when things went to court, they were rare and serious and the Bar was "out for blood."  I really don't have a feel for how they treat it now that they may have to litigate the first pass at every disciplinary case.

Let me clarify.  In the past, every grievance went through a vetting process and, if it alleged a rule violation, was initially ruled  upon by a grievance committee composed of lawyers and laypeople after a hearing.  The lawyer could either accept the ruling and sanction ordered by the committee or take the case to district court for a trial.  The Bar thus was in the position, more or less, of defending the grievance committee's work.  They pursued those cases vigorously.

I would like to point out the similarity in strategy that this shares with the "baffle them with bullshit" playbook used by republicans in media. And by Russians to foster the ineffective apathy that enables their authoritarianism. 

Its effectively a legal jamming strategy being employed to protect fascists and bad faith attorneys. There's so much noise in the system, it's much easier for bad guys to slip away and get away. Or at least delay things indefinitely. 

Because whoopie!!! Now the bar can RESTART their trial process and we'll get a trial date sometime in two or three election cycles. Because there's just SO many matters in the pipeline now, yeah?

[TwiceHorn 31512]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I would like to point out the similarity in strategy that this shares with the "baffle them with bullshit" playbook used by republicans in media. And by Russians to foster the ineffective apathy that enables their authoritarianism. 

Its effectively a legal jamming strategy being employed to protect fascists and bad faith attorneys. There's so much noise in the system, it's much easier for bad guys to slip away and get away. Or at least delay things indefinitely. 

Because whoopie!!! Now the bar can RESTART their trial process and we'll get a trial date sometime in two or three election cycles. Because there's just SO many matters in the pipeline now, yeah?

I tend to think it's more likely just shitty lawyering.  Shitty and aggressive. And the Bar has not really responded properly to it.  This kind of shitty lawyering isn't rewarded in the longer term.  This kind of lawyering has existed for much longer than there has been any Republican strategy.  It's not unlike the hazards of dealing with a pro se litigant.

This thing was set for trial in April, and that wasn't going to happen no matter what.  A trial date on a civil case within a year is not within the bounds of reasonable expectation if there is anything the slightest bit complicated about the case.

I am wondering about the judge, though.  She did deny Powell's motion to dismiss, initially.  She's a Collin County judge, and Collin County kind of sucks, and at least nominally an R.

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Hornius Emeritus 12479]

On 3/16/2023 at 9:53 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Yawn.

I'm fucking sick of you mischaracterizing what I say.

I am not arguing FOR Sidney Powell in any way shape or form.

I am telling you, along with most of the other ignoramuses on this thread why the Texas Bar has at least temporarily failed to discipline Sidney Powell.

It's because they failed, at least procedurally, to prove that she knowingly misstated facts to the courts and/or knowingly submitted false evidence.  The knowingly standard excludes "should have known."

I didn't write the laws you fuckstick.  Neither did any fascist lovers, dickbag.

We're stuck with the laws as they are written, in 1983 by the ABA.  

So, to discipline Sidney Powell you gotta prove she violated a rule.

You have no fucking idea what the rules are and even less idea how to prove a violation of them.

If you read what I said, you might.  Instead, you develop "implications" in your fevered brain about what I say.  And yo ujust bloviate with your sandy pussy about me and how the Bar and anyone else that doesn't satisfy your personal whims are all fascists and fascist lovers.

Jesus.

Fucking.

Christ.

Go.

Fuck.

Your,

Own.

Face.

You bloody cunt.

Fudge Nuggets too.

You two, especially, are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between an explanation and a defense.

I think some of y'all are taking this forum entirely too seriously for your own mental health.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I think some of y'all are taking this forum entirely too seriously for your own mental health.

I actually quite enjoy looking at these cases of interest, figuring out for myself what's going on and why, and then sharing that for whoever is interested.

I do get rather tired of being accused of saying things I didn't say and implying things that I didn't imply.  Beyond tired.

[Pato del Muerto 52534]

So you admit to not saying the things you didn’t say?

 

[Gatorubet 30271]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:34 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Praise Jeebus.  It appeared belatedly, but State Bar of Texas filed a Motion for New Trial timely on March 24 in the Powell disbarment case.

 

https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD/DocumentViewer/Embedded/fnt9AvAkWVR-cwst7tOyPcbWpiRZlSNxmr8c-UoRtS6L1cAlD7sF-XIJ2yJRQjLzbrp4cLkTnKSCv2bHYoHd8g2?p=0

 

This link may not last.

Well, the exhibit fuck up is indeed embarrassing, and assuming the cases cited in the state bar’s memo reflect an accurate depiction of current law, I’d say they have a pretty decent shot at a new trial.

The timeline was very helpful in showing that Syd did not respond to discovery in any diligent and honest way, sandbagging the bar with tons of documents after discovery was over and not allowing the bar sufficient time to review them. Particularly concerning was the fact that Sid’s privilege log showed there were tens of thousands of documents withheld with no chance for the bar to figure out the legitimacy of the claimed privilege. 

The judge flat misrepresenting the communication with the bar’s Attorneys should raise an eyebrow or two, and the fact that the whole thing smells like five day old dog crap should give an appellate court without an agenda enough grounds to grant the new trial.   

If those cases saying that the court can consider any documents previously filed (despite the exhibit fuck up) are correct, then I’d give the bar a better than 50% chance of reversing.   But I’ve never practiced in Texas, so my opinion is flat worthless.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:14 PM, Gatorubet said:

Well, the exhibit fuck up is indeed embarrassing, and assuming the cases cited in the state bar’s memo reflect an accurate depiction of current law, I’d say they have a pretty decent shot at a new trial.

The timeline was very helpful in showing that Syd did not respond to discovery in any diligent and honest way, sandbagging the bar with tons of documents after discovery was over and not allowing the bar sufficient time to review them. Particularly concerning was the fact that Sid’s privilege log showed there were tens of thousands of documents withheld with no chance for the bar to figure out the legitimacy of the claimed privilege. 

The judge flat misrepresenting the communication with the bar’s Attorneys should raise an eyebrow or two, and the fact that the whole thing smells like five day old dog crap should give an appellate court without an agenda enough grounds to grant the new trial.   

If those cases saying that the court can consider any documents previously filed (despite the exhibit fuck up) are correct, then I’d give the bar a better than 50% chance of reversing.   But I’ve never practiced in Texas, so my opinion is flat worthless.

After giving it a read-through, yeah two things from the judge are troubling.  One is the whole "I gave you an opportunity to correct and you declined," which is a mischaracterization, at best.  The second is an obtuse refusal to consider pleadings as evidence, when it's not the truth of the matter asserted in the pleadings, but what they aver about an exhibit.  Still not one of the bigger lies contained in the complaint (although the complaint calls the exhibits undated, it doesn't attach any real significance to it, so it's kind of who gives a fuck).

Here's the Bar's biggest evidentiary problem:  Powell has sworn that, although she signed the complaint, she didn't draft it and she didn't prepare the exhibits.  She admits to having reviewed it.  She says other lawyers did it.  The Bar needs to depose those lawyers and get the right answers to their questions to make their case.  And they may not get them and do not appear to have taken the depositions.

With respect to the affidavit exhibits, she says she didn't write them or otherwise prepare them and asks is a lawyer not entitled to rely on an affidavit that someone else will swear to?

In a federal court, by signing a pleading, you vouch for it soup to nuts by virtue of Rule 11.  But that's a constructive voucher.  Whether you actually prepared it or not, you're responsible.

That's most likely not going to help the Bar prove that she knowingly lied about anything in the Complaints or the exhibits thereto.  They're going to have to find individual assertions of fact, not mere allegations, prove that Powell prepared them or specifically approved them, and that they were false and materially so.

That Powell may have lied egregiously in other fora is not really germane to any of that.  The Bar is not going to be able to discipline her on vague notions that she lied outside of official proceedings, or that she "undermined democracy" in so doing.

[DDD Dad 14346]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

After giving it a read-through, yeah two things from the judge are troubling.  One is the whole "I gave you an opportunity to correct and you declined," which is a mischaracterization, at best.  The second is an obtuse refusal to consider pleadings as evidence, when it's not the truth of the matter asserted in the pleadings, but what they aver about an exhibit.  Still not one of the bigger lies contained in the complaint (although the complaint calls the exhibits undated, it doesn't attach any real significance to it, so it's kind of who gives a fuck).

Here's the Bar's biggest evidentiary problem:  Powell has sworn that, although she signed the complaint, she didn't draft it and she didn't prepare the exhibits.  She admits to having reviewed it.  She says other lawyers did it.  The Bar needs to depose those lawyers and get the right answers to their questions to make their case.  And they may not get them and do not appear to have taken the depositions.

With respect to the affidavit exhibits, she says she didn't write them or otherwise prepare them and asks is a lawyer not entitled to rely on an affidavit that someone else will swear to?

In a federal court, by signing a pleading, you vouch for it soup to nuts by virtue of Rule 11.  But that's a constructive voucher.  Whether you actually prepared it or not, you're responsible.

That's most likely not going to help the Bar prove that she knowingly lied about anything in the Complaints or the exhibits thereto.  They're going to have to find individual assertions of fact, not mere allegations, prove that Powell prepared them or specifically approved them, and that they were false and materially so.

That Powell may have lied egregiously in other fora is not really germane to any of that.  The Bar is not going to be able to discipline her on vague notions that she lied outside of official proceedings, or that she "undermined democracy" in so doing.

State Rule 13 is essentially the same as Rule 11 in that regard. 
 

Quote

The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.

Courts shall presume that pleadings, motions, and other papers are filed in good faith. No sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the particulars of which must be stated in the sanction order. "Groundless" for purposes of this rule means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A general denial does not constitute a violation of this rule. The amount requested for damages does not constitute a violation of this rule.

 

[Gil Bang 25983]

 

[Gatorubet 30271]

On 6/17/2023 at 7:35 PM, Gil Bang said:

 

How fitting that the Talons of Justice will emerge on Bird Day. 

[Gil Bang 25983]

Eastman on the stand now:

 

[Willfully Horn 8039]

Not much news from the bar hearing, other than the judge refused to allow Eastman to call a CPA as an expert witness. She wasn’t convinced the dude knew shit from shinola. The State Bar attorney chimed in to say the CPA hadn’t identified any actual fraud (in the book he wrote, I assume,) either.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/john-eastman-disbarment-hearing/

Edited June 21, 2023 by Willfully Horn
Spelling

[Gatorubet 30271]

Meanwhile in California:

“Well--well look. I already told you: The Venezuelan voting machines changed the votes from Trump to Biden…and the Soros dead people voted twice! If you wrote ’ballot’ on a napkin they’d accept it for God’s sake! I filed the suits because you Bar types are fine with election steals.  I have litigation skills; I am good at identifying causes of action. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?”