![]() ![]() See (website of company run by Powell on which donations are solicited to support the “additional cases every day”). The Court is troubled that Powell is profiting from the filing of this and other frivolous election-challenge lawsuits. And in case anyone missed it, Judge Parker flags for those local grievance commissions that these attorneys may be attempting to raise money off their bad behavior. Most importantly, however, they’re getting referred for possible suspension or disbarment in their home jurisdictions. So now the plaintiffs’ attorneys can cough up for the defendants’ legal costs and spend twelve hours of CLE “in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total) and election law (at least six hours total).” “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,” Judge Parker wrote in her very own italics. Over at Telegram, he seems to be taking the news well.Īnd indeed the court takes a similarly dim view of Wood and his compatriots’ motivation. Whodathunk that the “It can’t be defamation because I’m totally full of shit” defense would backfire?Īs to Lin Wood, who insisted that the court was not the boss of him because all he did was let Sidney Powell put his name on the case and then brag about his involvement, which isn’t real lawyerin’, the court concluded that “Wood is not credible.” Which seems appropriate for an attorney who testified that he never got notice of the sanctions motion, despite tweeting about it the same day it was served. And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order. But attorneys cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same. ![]() Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. In stark comparison, the present matter is built on fantastical claims and conspiracy theories.īut Powell was already in a foul odor with the court after her “frivolous” attempt to claim that an electronic signature didn’t count as entering an appearance and her public admission in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit that her fraud allegations were mere “claims that await testing by courts through the adversary process.” Brown arose from an undeniable history during which Black Americans were treated as secondclass citizens through legalized segregation in the schools of our country. But unlike Plaintiffs’ attorneys here, then-attorney Thurgood Marshall had the requisite legal footing on which his clients’ claims were grounded in Brown, and the facts were not based on speculation and conjecture. Yes, attorneys may and should raise difficult and even unpopular issues to urge change in the law where change is needed. Board of Education, bravely fighting against powerful interests and entrenched public opinion. That last sentence is a reference to the plaintiffs’ demanding emergency relief because their claim would be moot after December 8 when the electors were certified, and then continuing to argue the case through January 26.Īnd Sidney Powell did herself no favors when she likened her advocacy to that of Justice Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. “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,” the court wrote. ![]() Declining to verify whether your anonymous so-called expert witness has the qualifications he claims to have - and then failing to clarify with the court when the Post outs him - is not a reasonable inquiry.ĭocketing affidavits attesting that some people requested absentee ballots and then went on to vote in person, without bothering to ascertain whether this is illegal - it isn’t - is not a reasonable inquiry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |