the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Willfully Horn 8046]

GA has tough laws against racketeering. Racketeering charges were successfully brought against the de Kalb County sheriff and also their  school district. Those convictions seemed unlikely. 
 

John Floyd and Muni Willis have earned the right to not be dismissed out of hand.

(I watched Rachel last night).

 

[Francisco 2.0 32406]

Mark Meadows (and underlings), come on down!

 

 

[Bookman 4639]

What happened to the Gondor lawsuit? he dismissed and refiled, right? I can't seem to find it.

[SKJ 1311]

On 3/10/2021 at 6:30 PM, TwiceHorn said:

They are generally very similar.  State judges may not shit on RICO plaintiffs or prosecutors as regularly as federal, but the "structural" similarity is very much there.

RICO doesn't enhance penalties or anything compared to predicate offenses.  It allows the charging of loose organizations and their members (crime syndicates don't form C-Corps or LLCs) without having to prove the formalities of a conspiracy, namely that all charged parties agreed to commit a crime.  So a "crime family" can be charged top to bottom for an ordered hit even though the capos take great pains not to communicate, agree, or provide other evidence in support of a conspiracy, for a crude example.

It's a device that allows charging and conviction of people that were complicit and culpable in crimes, but didn't have an actual hand in it or participate in a provable conspiracy.

Just like being convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud is no worse than being convicted of wire fraud, a RICO conviction for wire fraud as a predicate offense is no worse than being convicted of wire fraud.  There are some forfeiture type remedies associated with RICO that are designed to destroy the organization or at least handicap it, so that may or may not be different from an individual charged with the same predicate offense.

Yes. All of this. 

 

But RICO can't exist without the people getting caught substantiation the indictments of the others.  You have to have someone flip, like conspiracy.  

Often times the rat bastards that flip actually get worse penalties than they would've if they'd have just taken their weight. If the people they're trying to f flip just go to trial and shut the fuck up, then please when it's advantageous they can get much less time. 

RICOis hard to prove without informants . The case falls apart quickly 

[hpslugga 4062]

8 hours ago, SKJ said:

Yes. All of this. 

 

But RICO can't exist without the people getting caught substantiation the indictments of the others.  You have to have someone flip, like conspiracy.  

Often times the rat bastards that flip actually get worse penalties than they would've if they'd have just taken their weight. If the people they're trying to f flip just go to trial and shut the fuck up, then please when it's advantageous they can get much less time. 

RICOis hard to prove without informants . The case falls apart quickly 

They'll get someone to flip. These are people with no honor and no principles. That's not the problem. The problem is whether Trump himself would face actual punishment after all of that. 

That's where I have no trust or hope in the system because the system now is about feelings and emotions. We can't punish people like Donald Trump because that would make him feel bad, and that would make his family feel bad, and that would make his supporters feel bad, and we can't have that many people feeling bad because that would make us feel bad that we made them feel bad...so let's just agree to disagree, forgive and forget, and let bygones be bygones right? Water under the bridge, eh?

[tx 3 putt 77287]

Someone Team Trump will break. They all know the only one safe / protected is Ivnaka 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

11 hours ago, SKJ said:

Yes. All of this. 

 

But RICO can't exist without the people getting caught substantiation the indictments of the others.  You have to have someone flip, like conspiracy.  

Often times the rat bastards that flip actually get worse penalties than they would've if they'd have just taken their weight. If the people they're trying to f flip just go to trial and shut the fuck up, then please when it's advantageous they can get much less time. 

RICOis hard to prove without informants . The case falls apart quickly 

Yes.

Because there seems to be ample evidence of Trump's personal involvement, both direct and supervisory, a "racketeering" or RICO charge seems superfluous.

But, I don't have access to all the facts and I'm not a prosecutor in Georgia, so I don't know what it all means.

Like popehat's post, people tend to get real exercised about RICO counts when they probably shouldn't.

[Beau Vine 54354]

Quote

The Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers must pay more than $18,000 in legal fees to the Arizona secretary of state after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled on Friday that one of the party's failed lawsuits challenging President Biden's win there last year was "groundless."

Judge John Hannah concluded last week that the state GOP filed the baseless suit for political reasons while claiming it was meant to protect election integrity and failed to recognize it had sued the wrong government official, The Associated Press reported.

According to the AP, "The financial award was made under a law that requires judges to assess attorney fees against lawyers or legal parties who bring claims to court without substantial justification or to delay or harass."

Taxpayers were forced to cover the legal fees to defend the state government last year, the AP reported.

The GOP, which tried to establish a new audit of a sampling of ballots, said the motive behind the suit was to determine whether voting machines were hacked, but Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) argued that the legal action was a "delay tactic" to undermine the certification of the election results.

In the ruling, Hannah contended that the GOP "made no serious pre-filing effort to determine the validity of the claims" and never named Hobbs as the defendant in the suit, instead pressing its claims against county election officials.

Jack Wilenchik, one of the lawyers for the state Republican Party, issued a statement saying the decision would be appealed and that the judge's ruling that public mistrust in an election is an "improper purpose" for the suit is "sorely disrespectful to the views of the many Americans whom I am proud to represent," the AP reported.

He added that the order "encourages public distrust in the government for being openly hostile to them."

The Arizona Republican Party did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.

No evidence of fraud or hacking of voting machines in the state's election was found.

 

[tx 3 putt 77287]

On 3/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Meanwhile Trump raised over $200 Million in donations since LOSING the election. 

 

how much was spent contesting election results ?

[DigglerontheHoof 21210]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

how much was spent contesting election results ?

[Beau Vine 54354]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

how much was spent contesting election results ?

Bout tree fiddy.

[Pato del Muerto 52556]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

how much was spent contesting election results ?

Something like 10 million

[RomaVicta 29966]

11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

I've got an idea of how we should put this thread on a loop and present it to Trump cultists.

 

Spoiler

 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

On 3/11/2021 at 8:40 PM, Bookman said:

What happened to the Gondor lawsuit? he dismissed and refiled, right? I can't seem to find it.

I think he "nonsuited" as to certain plaintiffs that had fired him and filed an amended complaint and a response to the sua sponte Rule 12 motion to dismiss.  And I believe the amended complaint asserts a class action.

Albright is probably trying to figure out wtf to do with it.

[Foosters 17867]

On 3/11/2021 at 6:40 PM, Bookman said:

What happened to the Gondor lawsuit? he dismissed and refiled, right? I can't seem to find it.

https://www.m90usa.com/

[WBT 20650]

5 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Something like 10 million

Spent or billed?

[Beau Vine 54354]

 

[RomaVicta 29966]

15 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Where's Wild Bill Hickock when you need him?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45702]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Ah the Tucker Carlson defense. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Biff Tannen 45702]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s like a Duck Tales villain. 

[tx 3 putt 77287]

On 3/10/2021 at 1:39 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Meanwhile Trump raised over $200 Million in donations since LOSING the election. 

how much has he give to Powell / Guliani / my pillow guy to help their dominion law suits ? Don’t all three have rock solid cases to over turn the election ???

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

your honor, everyone knows i'm full of shit, so if gullible morons believed me, it's their fault for being gullible morons.

if she has a long enough track record of saying outlandish shit, i would think her argument is decent.

but didn't she used to be somewhat respectable?

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

your honor, everyone knows i'm full of shit, so if gullible morons believed me, it's their fault for being gullible morons.

if she has a long enough track record of saying outlandish shit, i would think her argument is decent.

but didn't she used to be somewhat respectable?

She was Flynn’s lawyer. Respectable is relative 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

[TwiceHorn 31520]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

She was Flynn’s lawyer. Respectable is relative 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

DDD Dad knew her, I knew of her.  She was a quite respectable appellate lawyer until about 2000, and then she disappeared.  Maybe spent some time in the Georgia State Lunatic, Idiot, and Epileptic Asylum, where Marjorie Taylor-Greene was born.

[TwiceHorn 31520]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I laughed, but unlike other Powell-related shit shows, I think that is a very solid motion, particularly as pertains to the venue and jurisdiction allegations.

Dominion picked DC most likely because it doesn't have an Anti-SLAPP statute.  They're asking that it be moved to Texas, which does.  That's only going to slow things down and complicate them, it's probably not going to win the lawsuit for Powell.  At least I hope not.

[tx 3 putt 77287]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

[Bookman 4639]

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in federal jurisdiction and venue issues, but wasn't Sidney Powell physically located in DC during the press conference in which she made alleged defamatory statements?

[DigglerontheHoof 21210]

15 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in federal jurisdiction and venue issues, but wasn't Sidney Powell physically located in DC during the press conference in which she made alleged defamatory statements?

And on top of that...why Texas?  Shouldn't the other options be PA or GA?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13519]

Your honor, I held a press conference in the National GOP headquarters. No reasonable person would suspect me of telling the truth or presenting legitimate theories.

Is there any avenue of getting her deposed via a live stream so we all can watch? I want to watch her admit that she was making shit up to secure donations for her and Trump.

[tx 3 putt 77287]

a Texas jury is ready to give her a medal for her service to maga country !

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, she made her comments from the RNC "podium."  If anything, that should legitimize her claims, not allow her to hide behind "No reasonable person could think I was being serious."  If anybody should be using that defense, it should be Rudy...."Your honor, why would anybody take me seriously?  I was obviously at the Four Seasons podium to discuss upcoming spring preparations for your lawn.  You've got to mulch your honor...you've got to!"  

A lot of people are saying reasonable people wouldn't believe Ms. Powell's claims about election rigging and defamation about ballot machine companies.  What this court filing presupposes is, "What if the Trumpers she was talking to weren't reasonable?"  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13519]

The truth is that we all agree with her. No reasonable person should take it seriously when she said that the Venezeulan leader, who died 7 years, was behind the conspiracy to flip votes via technology.

But since 10s of millions of people believe her claims, the bar for reasonableness should be shifted.  Its not the judge's reasonable standard but society's.  And that bar has shifted tremendously since 2015 after Trump started running.

EDIT: And without looking, I assume there are defenders of Powell on TexAgs that are saying that she originally told the truth a few months back but that her current claims are only necessary to get the suit dismissed.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Francisco 2.0 32406]

Uh, where is Lin Wood? 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/02/12/lin-wood-is-representing-sidney-powell-in-dominion-defamation-case/?sh=2f0b6edb1ac2

 

Quote

Conservative attorney L. Lin Wood will join fellow lawyer Sidney Powell’s legal team in a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, even as the pro-Trump lawyer faces the threat of litigation for spreading baseless conspiracy theories about the company’s voting machines.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

7 hours ago, Bookman said:

I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in federal jurisdiction and venue issues, but wasn't Sidney Powell physically located in DC during the press conference in which she made alleged defamatory statements?

 

The argument is that the DC longarm statute for torts requires both the action and the injury to occur in DC.  The injury occurs where the plaintiff resides.

Now, there is a more general jurisdiction statute that just requires "minimum contacts" sufficient to sustain specific jurisdiction.  However, the wording of the DC statute seems to contemplate "business" contacts from which commercial disputes arise.  On the other hand, it has been held that that statute goes as far as constitutionally possible with minimum contacts.

We'll see how it shakes out, but, like I said, it's a very rational motion in contrast to most Powell things.

6 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

And on top of that...why Texas?  Shouldn't the other options be PA or GA?

The general rule in federal (and state for that matter) venue is that you go where the defendant lives.  That obviates all jurisdiction objections and most venue objections.

[TwiceHorn 31520]

21 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Uh, where is Lin Wood? 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/02/12/lin-wood-is-representing-sidney-powell-in-dominion-defamation-case/?sh=2f0b6edb1ac2

 

 

Good point.  I'm sure he has been evaluated as a liability and not just in an optical sense.  To even appear on the pleadings, he would likely have to seek admission pro hac vice, and that is going to require him to assert that he has no pending disciplinary or fitness matters.  That would be a shit show unto itself.  Even these jackholes aint got time for that.

The lead lawyer here was also the lead lawyer in Paxton's stupid-ass Supreme Court suit.  While Paxton's suit was far-fetched to the point of frivolous, writing up something like that that appears even facially plausible takes some talent.  He may be a political hack, but he's got some skillz.  https://larryjoseph.com/

Edited March 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 32406]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good point.  I'm sure he has been evaluated as a liability and not just in an optical sense.  To even appear on the pleadings, he would likely have to seek admission pro hac vice, and that is going to require him to assert that he has no pending disciplinary or fitness matters.  That would be a shit show unto itself.  Even these jackholes aint got time for that.

The lead lawyer here was also the lead lawyer in Paxton's stupid-ass Supreme Court suit.  While Paxton's suit was far-fetched to the point of frivolous, writing up something like that that appears even facially plausible takes some talent.  He may be a political hack, but he's got some skillz.  https://larryjoseph.com/

Well lookie here; speak of the devil:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/03/23/pro-trump-attorney-lin-wood-to-sue-georgia-state-bar-for-trying-to-take-away-law-license/?sh=60dda1ab13ae

 

Quote

Lin Wood plans to sue members of the State Bar of Georgia’s disciplinary board for requiring him to undergo a mental health evaluation to keep his law license, he said Tuesday, as the far-right attorney faces an investigation and other professional consequences for spreading baseless conspiracy theories about voter fraud in an attempt to overturn the November election.

 

Quote

Wood shared a lawsuit on Telegram to be filed in the U.S. District Court in Georgia, though court records indicate the complaint has not yet been docketed.

The State Bar of Georgia has asked Wood to undergo a mental health evaluation as part of a broader complaint against the attorney over his post-election behavior and litigation, which could ultimately result in Wood losing his ability to practice law on the grounds of “mental illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse, to the extent of impairing competency as a lawyer.”

 

Quote

Wood opposed the state bar’s request for a mental health evaluation and alleged it violates his First Amendment, due process rights and privacy, claiming he is not mentally ill and the state bar does not have adequate grounds to force him to undergo an evaluation.

The state bar’s investigation into Wood is based on four complaints sent in by people from outside Georgia about Wood’s lawsuits challenging the election results, Wood alleges, which the attorney defended in the lawsuit as him exercising his free speech on “political issues of inherent public and national concern.”

 

Quote

Wood’s refusal to undergo the examination could be grounds for him to lose his license in itself if he doesn’t win his court case, as the state bar’s rules stipulate doing so “may be grounds for further proceedings...including emergency suspension proceedings.”

The State Bar of Georgia has not yet responded to a request for comment, but has previously confirmed to Forbes that it is investigating Wood under its “Mental Incapacity and Substance Abuse” policy.

 

 

[Gil Bang 25990]

 

[Guest Lobo]

violating his constitutional rights?  I can't wait to grab my favorite pillow, take a few hits off the pipe, and cozy up with that filing brief.  

[Dahobbs 17643]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

The general rule in federal (and state for that matter) venue is that you go where the defendant lives.  That obviates all jurisdiction objections and most venue objections.

This is a way overbroad statement. Yes, going where the defendant lives will definitely supply personal jurisdiction and eliminate venue objections from the defendant. But, plaintiffs absolutely do not have to file where the defendant is and very often do not do so. Plaintiffs are the master of their complaint and generally get to choose the venue for the lawsuit among the legally permissible options. Defendant's home is one choice. Where the events constituting the claim or injury occurred is another. 

37 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Definitely intrigued to see this theory. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Biff Tannen 45702]

40 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

I think that’s an Onion headline

[Orale 1087]

The general rule in federal (and state for that matter) venue is that you go where the defendant lives.  That obviates all jurisdiction objections and most venue objections.

Huh? You can, but it certainly isn't the general rule from my experience.

[TwiceHorn 31520]

5 minutes ago, Orale said:

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The general rule in federal (and state for that matter) venue is that you go where the defendant lives.  That obviates all jurisdiction objections and most venue objections.

Huh? You can, but it certainly isn't the general rule from my experience.

Well, 28 USC 1391 is called Venue in General and applies to any civil action.  Accordingly, I called it the "general" rule.  General tends to be "broad," too.

 

But more to the poster's question about why it wasn't venued in GA or PA, those venues are no "better," legally, than DC, meaning their connection would be that some of the acts complained of occurred there.

 

One real good way to lose a motion to transfer venue is to ask for transfer to a venue that has the same problems as the one you're sitting in, as opposed to one that is unquestionably proper.  

 

It's also my experience that when a plaintiff sues in a district where neither it nor the defendant has more than passing connection, even if the connection is related to the lawsuit, there is a tendency to view that choice as borderline forum shopping.  Some circuits even embody that in their analytical rules for convenience transfers.

[Beau Vine 54354]

Do I have this correct?

Powell is simultaneously arguing that no reasonable person would believe what she was saying is true, while also arguing that she should be given legal immunity for saying it because that was what she was going to argue in court?

If so, what exactly does a lawyer have to do to get disbarred?

[TwiceHorn 31520]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

Do I have this correct?

Powell is simultaneously arguing that no reasonable person would believe what she was saying is true, while also arguing that she should be given legal immunity for saying it because that was what she was going to argue in court?

If so, what exactly does a lawyer have to do to get disbarred?

Well, first, this lawsuit and any question of disbarment are almost completely unrelated.  Generally speaking, a lawyer who loses a defamation suit isn't going to be subject to disbarment.  That said, something may come out in discovery showing a flagrant disregard for fact and a lack of candor in preparing the suits that may subject her to discipline in Texas or elsewhere.

And, what they really said was that her statements were not to be taken as statements of fact, but rather opinions.  Very generally speaking, opinions aren't defamatory.

Another angle is that there is a privilege to state things, subject to proof, in a lawsuit and in communications relating to a lawsuit.  

Still another angle is that Dominion is a public figure and defamation can't lie unless malice is proven.

There's yet another angle apparently under Colorado law that when someone makes a statement based on alleged facts, and provides those facts so that others can reach their own conclusion, that's not defamation.

This motion has two parts, one relates to DC being the proper venue for the case, which probably has some merit, and the other being that the lawsuit fails to state a claim, which probably has as little merit as it can have without violating the rules.   The latter is the vehicle, ironically, by which almost all Trump suits were dismissed.

I think the overall strategy is to get it transferred to Texas, where an Anti-SLAPP statute will apply and the "falls to state a claim" part will take on a new life in the context of that statute.  Still, I don't think this preliminary stuff will result in a victory on the merits for Powell.  

It does, however, give a preview as to exactly how she's going to defend the suit.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

They should have said it will likely be filed in 2 weeks.

[Underdog 28765]

Loondell

[Hanrahan 1306]

Well, first, this lawsuit and any question of disbarment are almost completely unrelated.  Generally speaking, a lawyer who loses a defamation suit isn't going to be subject to disbarment.  That said, something may come out in discovery showing a flagrant disregard for fact and a lack of candor in preparing the suits that may subject her to discipline in Texas or elsewhere.
And, what they really said was that her statements were not to be taken as statements of fact, but rather opinions.  Very generally speaking, opinions aren't defamatory.
Another angle is that there is a privilege to state things, subject to proof, in a lawsuit and in communications relating to a lawsuit.  
Still another angle is that Dominion is a public figure and defamation can't lie unless malice is proven.
There's yet another angle apparently under Colorado law that when someone makes a statement based on alleged facts, and provides those facts so that others can reach their own conclusion, that's not defamation.
This motion has two parts, one relates to DC being the proper venue for the case, which probably has some merit, and the other being that the lawsuit fails to state a claim, which probably has as little merit as it can have without violating the rules.   The latter is the vehicle, ironically, by which almost all Trump suits were dismissed.
I think the overall strategy is to get it transferred to Texas, where an Anti-SLAPP statute will apply and the "falls to state a claim" part will take on a new life in the context of that statute.  Still, I don't think this preliminary stuff will result in a victory on the merits for Powell.  
It does, however, give a preview as to exactly how she's going to defend the suit.

Do federal courts apply state anti-slapp laws? If so, why would Texas law apply to this case? Even if they do, Dominion would have to provide prima facie evidence to beat the anti-slapp, which in the case of defamation should be easy. The only at-issue element would be falsity, which dominion can establish by affidavit. I’m guessing the counter affidavits would be laughed out of court.

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

 

Do federal courts apply state anti-slapp laws? If so, why would Texas law apply to this case? Even if they do, Dominion would have to provide prima facie evidence to beat the anti-slapp, which in the case of defamation should be easy. The only at-issue element would be falsity, which dominion can establish by affidavit. I’m guessing the counter affidavits would be laughed out of court.

 

Most federal courts do not apply state anti slapp laws as it’s considered a procedural rule, not a substantive state law.