Court Sanctions Trump Lawyers Sydney Powell, Linn Wood et al For Lying About Election Fraud

[forkup]

Is it a lie if a person is so lost and distorted intellectually that they absolutely believe it to be true?

Serious question.

Actually yes, at least for a lawyer. A lawyer by definition is trained in presenting a case in court following certain standards. This doesn't mean he hasn't got the right to his or her opinion but when presenting a case they know (because it is their job) what is admissable to be presented as evidence. In this case, the relief they were searching for and the evidence they were presenting to justify seeking that relief was so far out of the parameters of normal behavior in court by lawyers, that the judge drew the conclusion that the suit was filed in bad faith.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It won't matter to the Trump cultists because, you know, cult.

But this coming was about as obvious as a new day or winter coming.

The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought.​

​

And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so. ...​

​

[A]ttorneys take an oath to uphold and honor our legal system. The sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.​

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf

As we all can see with what's going on in Afghanistan, nobody gives a shit about this anymore.

 

[DBA]

Actually yes, at least for a lawyer. A lawyer by definition is trained in presenting a case in court following certain standards. This doesn't mean he hasn't got the right to his or her opinion but when presenting a case they know (because it is their job) what is admissable to be presented as evidence. In this case, the relief they were searching for and the evidence they were presenting to justify seeking that relief was so far out of the parameters of normal behavior in court by lawyers, that the judge drew the conclusion that the suit was filed in bad faith.

And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.

Based on this statement alone, a counter suit should be filed and ironically for the same reasons you state above.

 

[BluesLegend]

Sanctions are to placate the rabid hate filled libs.....

The judge is a black female civil rights lawyer Obama appointed to the bench in Detroit. One of the most corrupt Dem cities in America. Sanctions from a biased activist judge are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

[DBA]

The judge is a black female civil rights lawyer Obama appointed to the bench in Detroit. One of the most corrupt Dem cities in America. Sanctions from a biased activist judge are not worth the paper they are written on.

Nah, no bias at all from this lawyer. I swear Democrats will fall for anything.

 

[forkup]

And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.

Based on this statement alone, a counter suit should be filed and ironically for the same reasons you state above.

A judge can give an opinion, that's why they call the ruling of a judge an opinion. In a court of law that is his or her job. So on what grounds do you figure a counter-suit would be filed? the judge is being mean to me?

 

[DBA]

A judge give an opinion, that's why they call the ruling of a judge an opinion. In a court of law that is his or her job. So on what grounds do you figure a counter-suit would be filed? the judge is being mean to me?

This is a frivolous suit based on an obvious bias as evidenced by the statement above.

 

[forkup]

This is a frivolous suit based on an obvious bias as evidenced by the statement above.

I'm sorry to tell you but sanctioning lawyers who file bad faith lawsuits are not frivolous suits.

The judge motivated why she came to that conclusion in her ruling. Since the original suit filed was about alleged election fraud, without the lawyers presenting any evidence to back it up. And the relief sought was completely outside what would be considered reasonable. The judge concluded that there were only 2 possible explanations. Either the lawyers were collectively so incompetent that they didn't understand that in order to file a lawsuit alleging voter fraud they actually had to present evidence. OR they filed the suit in bad faith in an attempt to delegitimize the election results using the courts as a vehicle to sway public opinion. The judge didn't think explanation one is likely. No bias is required to draw these conclusions.

 

[Mac1958]

Actually yes, at least for a lawyer. A lawyer by definition is trained in presenting a case in court following certain standards. This doesn't mean he hasn't got the right to his or her opinion but when presenting a case they know (because it is their job) what is admissable to be presented as evidence. In this case, the relief they were searching for and the evidence they were presenting to justify seeking that relief was so far out of the parameters of normal behavior in court by lawyers, that the judge drew the conclusion that the suit was filed in bad faith.

In other words, they should have known better. That seems fair.

I wonder if they knew they were running this risk when they were trying these stunts. Professionally, they're sure to pick up clients going forward who agree with their Trumpism. So in a way, this was marketing for them. But they do have to keep their licenses to practice if they want new clients.

 

[forkup]

In other words, they should have known better. That seems fair.

I wonder if they knew they were running this risk when they were trying these stunts. Professionally, they're sure to pick up clients going forward who agree with their Trumpism. So in a way, this was marketing for them. But they do have to keep their licenses to practice if they want new clients.

I think they made a calculation. Maybe lose my law license but for sure set myself up for a career as a politician or right-wing pundit, neither career requires a law license. Hell, they can fundraise millions on the back of this. And I don't know what the going rate for a regular talking head on Newsmax is but something tells me it's more than a lot of lawyers make.

 

[Astrostar]

The deranged Democrat Death Cult counts judges among its numbers - not news.

The Democrats engaged in massive election tampering/fraud and massive voter suppression - much worse than usual for them.

And their judges will of course cover up for them.

Nothing new here.

The hell of it is that most of the judges are Republican judges with many appointed by Trump himself. Same with boards of election that stand behind their states going for President Biden. Trump lost, pure and simple, and his ego just can't stand it. So, he reacts like the "whiny little bitch" that he is.

 

[DBA]

Either the lawyers were collectively so incompetent that they didn't understand that in order to file a lawsuit alleging voter fraud they actually had to present evidence. OR they filed the suit in bad faith in an attempt to delegitimize the election results using the courts as a vehicle to sway public opinion. The judge didn't think explanation one is likely. No bias is required to draw these conclusions.

They did present evidence, but not enough for this judge. I can't imagine how many times that has happened before? Option one is very likely and I might add that it is not reasonable for any judge or jury to expect an account of all fraudulent votes. That is absurd, akin to requiring every marked $1 bill from a bank robbery to be recovered in order to press charges.(Brilliant strategy with the mail-in ballots by the left) All that should be required is enough evidence to raise suspicion that more fraudulent votes were likely following the same pattern as the ones submitted. The mere fact that the judge's opinion was parroting the left-wing national media's claims regarding the suit is more than enough to show bias. Do we even need to check this judges political persuasion?

 

[forkup]

They did present evidence, but not enough for this judge.

This is what the judge had to say about the evidence provided.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ attempt to establish an equal protection claim based on the theory that Defendants engaged in tactics to, among other things, switch votes for Former President Trump to votes for President Biden, the Court found the allegations to be based on nothing more than belief, conjecture, and speculation rather than fact. (Id. at Pg ID 3326-28.)

This is saying that there was ZERO actual evidence presented

Option one is very likely and I might add that it is not reasonable for any judge or jury to expect an account of all fraudulent votes.

She didn't ask an account for all fraudulent votes. She asked for proof of any fraudulent votes. Those where not provided.

All that should be required is enough evidence to raise suspicion that more fraudulent votes were likely following the same pattern as the ones submitted.

A judge will not rule to disqualify millions of legal votes (the relief the lawyers in the suit were asking for) on proof of some fraudulent votes let alone the suspicion that some votes were fraudulent even if the lawyers provided them (wich they did not)

The mere fact that the judge's opinion was parroting the left-wing national media's claims regarding the suit is more than enough to show bias.

It's impossible that a judge can make a similar ruling on the basis of the evidence in a suit before them independently from what the media says?

Not for nothing, the left-wing media said that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud right? Might they be right considering the DOJ under Barr, judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, bipartisan election boards, and even lawyers pleading cases for Trump say the same?

 

[MinTrut]

The hell of it is that most of the judges are Republican judges with many appointed by Trump himself. Same with boards of election that stand behind their states going for President Biden. Trump lost, pure and simple, and his ego just can't stand it. So, he reacts like the "whiny little bitch" that he is.

The massively corrupt system's protecting itself you say?

Who could have foreseen that?

But yeah, exceptionally fraudulent and corrupt 2020 election, so I guess congratulations are in order?

 

[mamooth]

The massively corrupt system's protecting itself you say?

Since you're unable to present any evidence for any organized fraud, the logical conclusion is that, like those lawyers, you're also trying to subvert democracy.

 

[MinTrut]

Since you're unable to present any evidence for any organized fraud,

Unwilling, not unable.

the logical conclusion

Super-logical I'm sure.

is that, like those lawyers, you're also trying to subvert democracy.

You've exceeded all my expectations.

 

[Chillicothe]

"....exceptionally fraudulent and corrupt 2020 election,..........massively corrupt system..."

Well, the good poster MinTrut alleges...the whole system is corrupt, and the vote ( by 155, 485,078 registered American voters).....was ' fraudulent'.

OK, poster MinTrut, with that many people, in thousands of precincts and polling stations across America, it would seem you should be able to promptly name names, meaning who were the hands-on perpetrators. There had to be thousands of 'em, no?

And, assuming you will step up and name names in specific locales that cheated in a degree that changed the results in their jurisdiction.....well, how do you know those people were the ones?

And how do you know level of cheating; and in what method did they switch votes, add votes, negate votes?

So, saddle up, Skippy. Bring some game to the forum.

 

[mamooth]

Unwilling, not unable.

In your case, exactly the same thing. You're unwilling because you're unable.

What, you actually thought it wasn't obvious?

The only mystery here is _why_ you're lying. Are you just a butthurt sore-loser? A fascist white-supremacist? An agent of Moscow? I guess time will tell.

 

[mamooth]

Let's remind everyone that, in defense to Dominion's civil suit, Powell stated that what she filed in court was just her opinion, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That is, she has admitted to exactly what the judge castigated her for.

 

[MinTrut]

Well, the good poster MinTrut alleges...the whole system is corrupt, and the vote ( by 155, 485,078 registered American voters).....was ' fraudulent'.

Yup.

OK, poster MinTrut, with that many people, in thousands of precincts and polling stations across America, it would seem you should be able to promptly name names, meaning who were the hands-on perpetrators.

See the Democrat Party, and to a lesser extent, the Republican.

Also, anyone who aids & abets (judges & so forth).

There had to be thousands of 'em, no?

At various levels, probably more.

One might even include anyone who supports the massively corrupt system, so tens of millions.

And, assuming you will step up and name names in specific locales that cheated in a degree that changed the results in their jurisdiction.....well, how do you know those people were the ones?

Your logic is infallibly illogical; a babbling brook flowing to an idiot river.

And how do you know level of cheating; and in what method did they switch votes, add votes, negate votes?

Switching?

Adding?

Did I say this was done?

Do you know something you should be contacting the FBI about?

Negating votes of course - that's more the Democrat Party's speed.

MASSIVELY criminal gang.

So, saddle up, Skippy.

You first, Sparky - what do you know about Democrat vote switching & adding????

Bring some game to the forum.

Show me the way!