On Thursday, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Florida's new definition of riot as unconstitutionally vague and rejected the Governor's argument that it simply codified the common law definition of riot. Actual riots are illegal, but peacefully holding a sign with a group of like-minded fellows while the governor or sheriff thinks someone near you might turn violent cannot be a crime.
Gov. DeSantis produced some extremely gross racism, including evidence that unrelated Black civil rights groups in other parts of the state had organized marches.
“Though it is true the event flyers include images of Black men and women apparently engaged in peaceful protest, Plaintiffs are not before this Court representing all Black men and women in the State of Florida,” the court noted acidly.
DeSantis also included this flier for a Juneteenth celebration of “Black Joy” as proof that the defendants felt free to express their opposition to the government.
Confusing a picnic with a protest march with a riot is a good way to show your understanding of the 1st Amendment is unconstitutionally vague.
See also the judgment in Doc 137 of Dream Defenders v. DeSantis (4:21-cv-00191), District Court, N.D. Florida.
That Detroit’s firm walked away only asking for $180K is a boon for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and the rest of team Kraken.
That's based on Doc 173 where the State of Michigan civil servants estimate costs as $21,964.75 and the City of Detroit's outside firm estimates a discounted $182,192 in Doc 174. Detroit got a 10% discount because the high volume of election litigation and the outside firm of Fink Bressack helpfully points out that over 60% of their costs were due to their work on the sanctions.
Had Powell gotten this to the Discovery phase, the legal fees would have skyrocketed.
As of September 3, Docs 150-152 detail the current asks by Dominion ($78,944.00), Facebook ($50,000) and CTCL ($64,012.24), but this time they aren't asking Plaintiffs’ counsel, Walker and Fielder, but the judge. Although the amounts changed this is a net bill of over $6000 more than the initially reported negotiating positions.
Dominion writes:
BHFS spent a total of 242.3 hours (1) preparing and arguing Dominion’s Motion to Dismiss and (2) preparing and arguing Dominion’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
...
Because some of these [actual] hourly rates, though reasonable, are above the rates included in the resource referenced by the Court in its sanctions order—the Colorado Bar Association’s Economics of Law Practice Survey—Dominion has reduced most of the rates above to reach its lodestar calculation of $78,944.00. ... This equates to a reduction of nearly $20,000.00.
Facebook writes:
Facebook seeks an award of $50,000 for reasonable legal fees for 166.8 hours of work by its attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (“Gibson Dunn”) in connection with investigating, researching, drafting, and arguing its Motion to Dismiss and opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. To arrive at this request, Facebook took the following steps:
Facebook first reduced the total hours spent on legal work related to these two motions through the exercise of “billing judgment” by Gibson Dunn
Facebook next reduced the hourly rates Gibson Dunn, which is a national law firm, charges, in order to align with the rates in the 2017 Colorado Bar Association survey cited in the Court’s Order
Facebook finally subtracted nearly $10,000 more from the $59,760 resulting from a straightforward multiplication of these reduced hours and reduced rates to reach the final requested amount of $50,000
Center For Tech And Civic Life writes in footnotes:
Nevertheless, in an effort to compromise, CTCL’s counsel not only based their proposed fees on the median rates applicable in the Colorado market, cf. id. (“$350.00 per hour is on the high side of billing rates for attorneys in Colorado”), but also offered to stipulate to a fee award of $37,500 to avoid further litigation and expense. Plaintiffs’ counsel ignored and then flatly rejected that offer. ECF 146, 147. ... [Plaintiffs' counsel] also rejected CTCL’s proposal out of hand and said they would agree only to a $10,000 award that preserved their rights to continue litigating both in this Court and on appeal. See ECF 146. When CTCL attempted to negotiate further, Plaintiffs’ counsel rebuffed them outright.
CTCL in the main writes:
As set forth in CTCL’s billing records—attached as Exhibit 8 to the Affidavit of Joshua Matz (“Matz Aff.”)—CTCL spent 313.4 hours of attorney and paralegal time on the Relevant Motions. Matz Aff. ¶ 13. That includes time dedicated to analyzing the filings by Plaintiffs’ counsel, drafting CTCL’s briefs (ECF 41, 62, 81), and preparing for and participating in argument. Consistent with the Court’s sanctions order, CTCL multiplied its hours by the median prevailing market rates in Colorado to arrive at its lodestar figure. See ECF 136 at 68. After adding $1,082.24 for CTCL’s electronic research expenses, CTCL arrived at its requested award of $64,012.24.
Perhaps because they are the only of the three to adopt the median rate and perhaps had less need to justify their hourly rates, CTCL is the only one to tackle the issue of the fundraising behind the plaintiff's counsel:
If Plaintiffs’ counsel object to CTCL’s requested fee award based on an alleged inability to pay, they should be expected to provide detailed information covering all these points, rather than a broad assertion of financial difficulty. In any event, Plaintiffs’ counsel have already confirmed that they fundraised approximately $95,000 from roughly 2,100 individuals during this litigation. ECF 133 at 22. That should be considered in assessing their ability to pay. CTCL respectfully submits that, notwithstanding any expenditures they have made against that figure, the global sanctions award should exceed the total amount they induced people to pay them.
(emphasis added)
That's the type of salty language you get when you try and sue a non-profit for $160,000,000,000.
What do you know about Judge Nichols that we do not? Or are you using "corrupt" as a adjective which is meaningless in debate similar to "not in 100% lockstep with my personal, undocumented, ignorant prejudgement" ?
Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds.
(emphasis added)
But not only does this "it's just my opinion I actually have video of the company founder engaging in conspiracy" claim not successfully turn a factual claim into a privileged opinion, in fact the evidence behind such claims is missing, leaving Powell defenseless.
And if some corrupt and hateful AG wants to enlist her BBF judge to mount
Since you throw in a misogynic slight against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel it appears you are making fact-free claims. Nessel did not file papers in King v. Whitmer. Nor do you have evidence that Nessel and Judge Parker spoke on the matter.
So worked up are you that you toss in the initialism BBF which has many meanings. Initially, I assumed you were having a racist Freudian slip and conflated BFF (best friends forever, which would make more sense if you used a useful meaning for "corrupt") with some other race-themed initialism, but possibly "Big Black Female" is established usage in racist or fetish circles. But... Judge Parker is not a big person: 2016 video
you are applauding like tainted corrupt fools do.
This use of "tainted" is commonly seen in a white supremacist propaganda and rarely elsewhere. Please elucidate and justify this adjective.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
In some countries, resisting arrest is a criminal charge against an individual who has committed, depending on the jurisdiction, at least one of the following acts:
fleeing a police officer while being arrested
...
The courts in the United States regard resisting arrest as a separate charge or crime in addition to other alleged crimes committed by the arrested person. It is possible to be charged, tried and convicted on this charge alone, without any underlying cause for the original decision to arrest or even if the original arrest was clearly illegal.[10][11] Accordingly, it is never advisable to resist even an unlawful arrest as it will likely result in the use of force by the arresting officer and the addition of the charge of resisting.[12] In most states, see below, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor which can result in jail time. Wikipedia: Resisting Arrest
Re: 'How was I to know throwing rocks straight up was painful?!'
I'm pretty sure that calling someone a conservative, "right-wing" or even a Trump supporter is protected opinion, not a factual assertion; while calling someone a Republican is likely not defamatory (esp. in Colorado).
Yet Fielder styles himself as a Constitutional Lawyer at times.
The April order dismissing the civil suit was issued in April.
So O'Rourke, et al v. Dominion Voting Systems, et al is in the 10th Circuit as case 21-1161.
2021-04-30 Appeal process started
2021-05-13 Fielder lets the court know what the appeal is going to be about:
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE BELOW AND THE RESULT:
Eight Plaintiffs from five states filed a class action, civil rights case against two corporations, a non-profit organization and certain individuals, for their respective, unconstitutional conduct concerning the 2020 Presidential election. After the served defendants filed their motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with One-Hundred and Forty-Five Plaintiffs, with amended claims. Before resolution of the motions, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed certain defendants, leaving the two corporations and non-profit as the remaining defendants. Two individual defendants remained unserved, when the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and denied the motion to amend, as futile. III. ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL:
The legal issues concern the standing of the Plaintiffs to bring the action. The standing of the Plaintiffs is connected to the status of the served Defendants as state actors, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court erred by finding that the Plaintiffs made only a generalized grievance, which failed to articulate a concrete and specific injury. The district erred by failing to recognize the injury suffered by the Plaintiffs, and other persons similarly situated. The district court erred by denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, and by finding that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile.
2021-06-23 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief. When was it due? Today. Did he know he was going to need more time earlier?
In fact, undersigned counsel was set for trial on this day of June 23, 2021, in a case involving a fatal traffic matter with multiple experts, but the case was dismissed—only after days of preparation
2021-07-20 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief (originally due 2021-07-28).
Absent extra-ordinary circumstances, this should be the last request for an extension of time.
2021-08-30 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief (originally due 2021-09-02).
The order sanctioning undersigned counsel was lengthy and additional time was required to review and understand the order. Additional attorney hours were spent determining how to proceed and the impact the order would have on this appeal.
Further, in light of the motions filed and the magistrate’s order, undersigned counsel has been slandered in multiple major newspapers, television and radio shows across the nation. Undersigned counsel has consistently been referred to as a “Trump lawyer,” GOP attorney,” “right-wing attorney,” and other misstatements. Undersigned counsel is not a Trump lawyer, or a GOP lawyer, and has no affiliation with either of those persons or entities. Undersigned counsel is not a “right-wing lawyer” and such public comments have put the safety and security of undersigned counsel and his family in danger.
Undersigned counsel’s email and voicemail were and continue to be used by individuals from across the country to disparage and threaten undersigned counsel. The Office of Regulatory Counsel of the State of Colorado wrote a letter to the press that undersigned counsel is under investigation for unethical behavior, in light of the magistrate’s order. Now that that Regulation Counsel has made a request for investigation a public matter which threatens undersigned counsel’s law license and, thus, ability to earn and living and support undersigned counsel’s family, this has also caused anxiety and emotional distress that has greatly affected undersigned counsel’s ability to appropriately concentrate, research and write the opening brief.
2021-09-17 Opening brief is currently due Friday, September 17.
Tuesday was the last day to request the court to amend the motions for sanctions. Instead, a motion to extend that deadline to Tuesday the 14th. Why does the lawyer think he needs extra time?
The order itself was lengthy, covered multiple parties, and discussed a number of different facts and issues.
Again, this was two lawyers who claimed damages of $160,000,000,000 and sought to amend their factually-unsupported generalized complaint demanding unconstitutional personal jurisdiction by recruiting another 152 plaintiffs none of which provided particularized injury or evidence of more that a feeling that something was wrong. To complain to the judge that the ruling was long-winded in the cataloguing of their offenses, the three separate authorities to impose sanctions and the dismissal of monetary sanctions for one individual for not having meaningfully contributed kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no.
Additionally, the order required counsel for Plaintiffs to review the itemized billing of counsel for the Defendants, and respond accordingly to the court’s order concerning a possible stipulation with regard to an “appropriate sanction.”
But the only known criteria they applied seems to have been the total cost measured against an arbitrary yardstick of $10,000. Dominion finally got them to reply for the first time on August 16. “Walker stated that Plaintiffs’ counsel would not agree to a stipulated sanctions award amount until after they received Dominion’s detailed billing records.” which was sent the next day. Did they respond to the reduced total, the hourly rates, the hours billed? Did they make time to confer at all? Not according to exhibit 1 of Doc 141. So where did the time go?
Further, in light of the motions filed and the courts order, undersigned counsel has been slandered in multiple major newspapers, television and radio shows across the nation.
I'm not a lawyer, but I expect what the meant to say is that they spent a lot of time reading constitutionally protected opinion and fair reporting on official government documents. Any chance now the court will issue a sua sponte order forbidding to file a defamation case in any jurisdiction without this court's approval? I'm just asking for a friend.
As a result, lead counsel, Gary D. Fielder, Esq.,
Are you really trying to impress the judge by styling yourself as an "Esquire" ???
has closed the Law Office of Gary Fielder, and is currently in the process of laying off his employees and moving from both of his office locations. All of this has caused a great deal of anxiety, which has impacted counsel’s ability to concentrate, and thus finish and file an appropriate motion, pursuant to Rule 59.
This kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no. But the bad press coverage seems like a predictable outcome of a predictable order on sanctions in a case where the law makes it predictable that you were going to lose. So why did you file this motion for additional time on the very day the motion was due?
Also, whose fault is it that Fielder has two offices to close when he opened one office on June 2nd (the day after Judge Neureiter ordered a hearing on these sanctions) according to this press release? This is after the lawsuit crashed in District Cort back in April, but the press release touts it with:
This is the same Fielder that is valiantly leading the charge in a historic class action lawsuit.
Maybe they were thinking of a different case.
Finally his kid has been sick this week and he needs to have a COVID test before the child can return to school.
Now the other lawyer, Ernest Walker, has neither signed the motion nor apparently filed his own. (It may have been mailed in from out-of-state, as I haven't checked all the docket entries to see if Walker has used ECF.) But does Fielder speak for Walker? As late as August 16, Walker felt free to speak for Fielder.
“[f]alse statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society. When those false statements are made by an attorney,” the misrepresentation is exacerbated because it “tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession and its mandate to act as a trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice.”
“To wait as counsel did smacks once again of political gamesmanship.”
“When any counsel seeks to target processes at the heart of our democracy, the Committee may well conclude that they are required to act with far more diligence and good faith than existed here.”
“sanctions are required to deter the filing of frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits such as this in the future and to compensate the Defendants for the unnecessary expenditure of private and public money in defense of a frivolous lawsuit filed without reasonable legal basis and without a reasonable inquiry into the facts.”
The decision in King is highly relevant here because it involves a nearly identical lawsuit brought by many of the same lawyers. As a result, nearly every observation in the thorough analysis presented by Judge Parker applies here, too.
Under the US Constitution, courts don't have power until disputes are brought to them. Since this case was resolved before an answer to the complaint was filed, there was no factual inquiry beyond the filings (discovery) which would have possibly revealed if there was third-party litigation funding. If there were such evidence and the lawsuit was directed by them for improper purpose, then sanctions could possibly be applied against them. (I think — I'm not qualified to offer legal advice.)
Even if there were, the sanctions available to the court against such real parties of interest is unlikely to exceed the costs of defending the case. (And PACs and other politically motivated persons and organizations can have deep pockets.) But regardless of the motivation of the real parties of interest, the people who did the real damage here were the lawyers who ignored their oaths and duties and consented to this propaganda and harassment effort disguised as litigation.
So the court will make them undo the only damage they can force them to undo and do its best to make sure they never do it again anywhere else. Even discounting the likelihood of disbarment for some, they all burned their reputation for seriousness in front of one of the most serious forums whose opinions grace the Internet.
Michigan is ranked 10th in population, which means 50% of the country lives in a state with a larger population.
David wrote:
... liberal judges try stifling the free speech of lawyers ...
Lawyers have plenty of free speech, outside the litigation privilege. Inside the courtroom and in their legal filings, lawyers have to follow the rules of the court and the legal profession.
According to 6th circuit precedent in Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (2005) :
In that narrow capacity, [the attorney] voluntarily accepted almost unconditional restraints on [the attorney's] personal speech rights, since his sole raison d'etre was to vindicate [the attorney's] client's rights. For these reasons, we hold that in the context of the courtroom proceedings, an attorney retains no personal First Amendment rights when representing [the attorney's] client in those proceedings.
I don't know if the author of those words, Judge Alice Batchelder, was a liberal judge or not, but Reagan twice nominated her to the District Court and she was nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court by Bush in 1991. So I doubt it.
David wrote:
... fighting for election integrity
None of the nine lawyers sanctioned in the King v. Whitmer case discussed above was "fighting for election integrity," but rather the opposite. In the complaint they explicitly asked, not for a true and valid count of the votes but instead “[a]n order requiring Governor Whitmer to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election.” (Doc 1, page 73)
David wrote:
... because they are afraid of the truth coming out!
Judge Parker doesn't appear afraid of the truth and had a long hearing in which none of the nine lawyers took any responsibility to ensure the truth was on their side.
As such, no attorney wants to take responsibility now that sanctions are sought for filing this lawsuit.
(Doc 172, pp. 25-26)
Plaintiffs alleged that certain acts or events constituted violations of the Michigan Election Code when, in fact, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to make any inquiry into whether such acts or events were in fact unlawful.
(p. 62)
Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to present any evidence to support their allegation of “illegal double voting.”
(p. 68)
The Court then asked: “[D]id anyone inquire as to whether or not [] Bomer actually saw someone change a vote?” The Court was met with silence.
(p. 78, citation removed, emphasis added)
David wrote:
You won't get justice in the courts, bring your own gallows to the reckoning like in old times!
Advocating lynching is more likely to see you face the courts than to obtain anything resembling true justice.
David wrote:
You know this is going to come.
The lynch mob idea was so January Sixth. I think you are living in the "old times."
David wrote:
The lunatics reside over their own court of public opinion, and modern media means they can even mobilise it into action by talking inside its bubble without the message getting diluted while spreading.
Calling people names for the affront of asking for evidence before deciding that a crime happened is hardly likely to get them to leave their realm of facts for your evidence-free bubble. If you want to convince us, use actual facts and actual arguments based on actual laws, please.
David wrote:
Media are the key to bringing the U.S. to its knees.
You are using mass media to attempt to communicate your viewpoint. This site is using mass media to advocate one should base their viewpoint on facts and a love of the First Amendment and certain suspicion that delegating tech to the control of companies is giving up an important freedom.
Is the problem mass media or a population of self-satisfied, ignorant and gullible who base which inputs they accept on tribalism and not which inputs are the best?
David wrote:
Why fly planes into skyscrapers if you can kill dozens of millions by spreading vaccine misinformation from abroad?
Most internal sources of vaccine and election misinformation are not trying to kill people but to gain an audience of the gullible and easily persuadable.
David wrote:
Why bring your own army if you can mobilise the U.S. against itself?
In my head the future discussion should go along these lines.
“We may be just simple Colorado lawyers, but we don't see why so many defendants had to plead so many distinct defenses and reasons for sanctions.”
“Do you mean to say ... they shouldn't make a Federal case out of it?”
“Exactly!”
“Well, maybe you should have thought about that before dragging two corporations, a non-profit, four governors and various state officials across the country into Federal court while demanding $160,000,000,000.”
“... but their hourly rates are so expensive and they worked so many hours!”
“That is not their fault.”
“... but $10,000 is reasonable.”
“It's not about what you consider reasonable. It's about their work and what the court already said was reasonable.”
“... but if it is much more than $10,000 then we wouldn't have made a profit.”
“That is not their fault.”
Facebook $59,760.00 (not stipulated, status of negotiations unclear)
CTCL $37,500.00 (never responded to)
Pennsylvania $6,162.50
Michigan $4,900.00
but then the Colorado lawyers again extend the matter by refusing to jointly sign any stipulations. (Doc 142, Doc 144) or negotiate with the corporations (Doc 143, Doc 145 ?) and non-profit (Doc 146).
If they insist on the $10,000 figure, they are both going to any remaining credibility with the judge as to their capability to be reasonable and incur additional costs.
After the August 3 order granting sanctions, the lawyers continue dispute that they owe anything and seemingly just now notice that corporate lawyers in the private sector are paid much better than the civil servants in the public sector, which they would have been clued in about if they had consulted the guidelines for reasonable fees the judge referred them to.
All the defendants who meaningfully contributed to the defense to get paid, but not Davis since a) not a defendant, and b) not that helpful. All nine of the plaintiff's lawyers are ordered to 12 hours of remedial education with a essay addressed to the court required, and all lawyers are referred to all available disciplinary bodies.
IT IS ORDERED that the motions for sanctions filed by the State Defendants (ECF No. 105) and City of Detroit (ECF No. 78) are GRANTED. The Court is granting in part and denying in part Davis’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 69) in that the Court finds sanctions warranted but not an award of Davis’ reasonable attorneys’ fees or costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall jointly and severally pay the fees and costs incurred by the State Defendants and the City of Detroit to defend this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of this Opinion and Order, the State Defendants and City of Detroit shall submit time and expense records, specifying for each attorney who performed work on the matter, the date, the hours expended, the nature of the work performed, and, where applicable, the attorney’s hourly rate. Plaintiffs’ counsel may submit objections to the requested amount within fourteen (14) days of each movants’ filing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall each complete at least twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total) and election law (at least six hours total) within six months of this decision. Any courses must be offered by a non-partisan organization and must be paid for at counsel’s expense. Within six months of this decision, each attorney representing Plaintiffs shall file an affidavit in this case describing the content and length of the courses attended to satisfy this requirement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this decision to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the appropriate disciplinary authority for the jurisdiction(s) where each attorney is admitted, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment: (i) Sidney Powell - Texas; (ii) L. Lin Wood - Georgia; (iii) Emily Newman - Virginia; (iv) Julia Z. Haller - the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York and New Jersey; (v) Brandon Johnson - the District of Columbia, New York, and Nevada; (vi) Scott Hagerstrom - Michigan; (vii) Howard Kleinhendler - New York and New Jersey; (viii) Gregory Rohl - Michigan; and (iv) Stefanie Lynn Junttila - Michigan. IT IS SO ORDERED. Doc 172, pp 109-110
It never fails to astound me at your sadistic glee
You haven't been paying attention. This site frequently editorializes in favor of bench slaps of copyright trolls and other lawyers who have been found to abuse the judicial process. Is goes beyond simple schadenfreude and encompasses a sense of richly deserved justice being done. As such you must engage with the particular facts, rules, duties and oaths if you are to make sense of why both the judge and the site feel sanctions are deserved, or to meaningfully comment on them.
restless wrote:
in chronicling the latest ruling from the corrupt District Courts,
[citation required] "corrupt" in this context, without a specific allegation of a specific court being improperly influenced by specific individuals for a specific outcome isn't corruption but just your inability to comprehend the reasoning of the judgment or the facts.
Your objection to the courts makes no sense. If all of the US Federal courts are "corrupt" then why did plaintiffs file the case in the District Court of Colorado when elections are carries out by the officials of and under the laws of the individual states? Magistrate Judge Neureiter is not to blame for the fact that you need a genuine grievance before a Federal court has Article III authority to give you anything, and the plaintiffs had no evidence of anything other than a anti-democratic PR campaign by the loser.
restless wrote:
but only if it's against voters and vote fraud.
But this case wasn't about voters as it was the lawyers who invented the lawsuit and then went around looking for plaintiffs. (Doc 136, p. 58). And if the lawyers thought it was about fraud, don't they have a duty to be serious about it?
Yet, as cited above, there was substantial public evidence that these were not serious people, and the numerous courts’ rejection of the lawyers’ arguments and factual claims should have put Plaintiffs’ counsel on notice to be very cautious before repeating these damaging allegations via a massive cut-and-paste job, without additional strenuous verification efforts.
Plaintiffs’ counsel should have spoken to some of the other lawyers whose complaints they were copying into this lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ counsel should have confronted the authors of those failed lawsuits with evidence and public information that seemed to refute their claims to test their legitimacy. They should have done the same with the expert’s whose affidavits or reports they were citing.
Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel spoke to no one.
(Doc 136, p. 54, footnote omitted)
restless wrote:
Your rousing embrace of the corrupt court's assertion that 150 million voters have no interest in honest, fraud-free elections, and thus have no "standing" and cannot be represented in a suit is similarly comical.
It's not this court that says they don't have standing. but the Supreme Court in 1974, 1989, 1992, 2007 and every other time it has been asked since.
We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007) (per curiam) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
In an annotation to Article III of the US Constitution, the Congressional Research Service writes:
Even when Article III constitutional standing rules have been satisfied, the Court has held that principles of prudence may counsel the judiciary to refuse to adjudicate some claims. ... plaintiffs may not air generalized grievances shared by all or a large class of citizens. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-2-5-3-4/ALDE_00001204/
So in light of this, it looks like the judge was completely right when he wrote:
But whatever the grievances, the disputed conduct and the resulting claimed injury impacted 160 million voters in the same way. The Complaint, viewed as whole, is a generalized grievance about the operation of government, or about the actions of the Defendants on the operation of government, resulting in abstract harm to all registered voting Americans. It is not the kind of controversy that is justiciable in a federal court.
(Doc 92, pp 9-10)
restless wrote:
As usual I am mystified by your promiscuous of the Antifa word "grifter." [citation required] Where is grifter an antifa word?
In this case you seem to think that lawyers who raised money for their case spent it instead of on expert witnesses (or other legal costs) but really must have spent it on hookers and blow in Aruga.
Isn't it sufficient to claim that they raised public funds on a subject that their plaintiffs alleged to be serious to them without doing the work required by serious lawyers?
... Mr. Fielder and Mr. Walker could have spent some of the $95,000 they raised from the public to fund this litigation on an expert or three to assess and verify the truth of the information contained in the materials from other lawsuits which were copied into this Complaint. Rather than hiring an expert pre-filing, they spoke to no one.
(Doc 136, p. 55)
The judge found that they should have spent considerable time and money on making sure they had a case before deciding to file it and put a burden on the courts and the defendants. Like with their standing issue and their personal jurisdiction issue, there was no evidence that they attempted their Rule 11 duties with regard to plausible case.
restless wrote:
Of course, neither you nor the court knows what it was spent on and therefore it is obviously not a grift and attorneys are not grifters but for unknown reasons you guys seem to think that the term is a damning indictment that proves in your mind, everything whatever that is.
Again, the lawyers started this lawsuit as a doomed effort with no legitimately viable route to obtaining relief from the court. They did no research worthy of the name but merely cut-and-paste the work of other doomed (and in many cases, dead and debunked) claims from other cases. And they are sanctioned for having neither 1) law or 2) facts on their side. But what they got was a PR campaign and fund-raising drive based on their claimed hopes to recover $1000 for each of 160 million potential plaintiffs (registered voters). (Doc 1, p 86)
Luring people to invest seed money in a doomed get-rich-quick scheme is a classic grift and the alternate explanations don't immediately seem favorable in light of the US Constitution, the paucity of relevant facts in their cut-and-paste affidavits, their arguments duplicating those in other lawsuits, and their choice to file in Colorado. They raised (according the the judge) $95,000 and to the extent they spent any of it, it was wasted.
restless wrote:
Your article also claimed that Powell and Wood were sanctioned but your lead back to your own articles claiming that they might be. It's remarkable to watch all of the back-flips you do especially on the reputations of these esteemed Esq's.
Obviously there's no shame in your persona. You'll write anything if Trump has anything to do with it. Anything.
Did Trump have anything to due with it? The Colorado lawyers went out of their way to signal that they were pro-Trump despite claiming to work in the interested of all registered voters, over whom about 4.4% more of which (7.05 million) voted for Biden. They even took time to quote a Trump tweet quoting a baseless OANN story to try and give it gravitas. (Doc 1, p 49)
It's not up to me to judge if they filed this lousy lawsuit because they are unskilled lawyers or bad lawyers, but they spent far more time preaching to the Trump/OANN choir than building a solid lawsuit. Since they sought a payout of $160,000,000,000 . (Doc 1, p 82)
One circumstance that must be considered was whether Plaintiffs’ counsel was under any time pressure to file the Complaint—whether the statute of limitations was running or there was some emergency that required immediate filing before a detailed investigation into the veracity of the allegations could be completed. The answer to this question is an unequivocal “no.” As Plaintiffs’ counsel has emphasized, this was primarily a claim for damages for alleged civil rights violations as a result of the November 2020 election. There was nothing about a claim for damages that compelled it to be filed just weeks after the election in December 2020. Given the seriousness and scope of the allegations, extensive objective research into the legal basis for the claims and due diligence into the factual allegations should have occurred. And there was ample time for such investigation. There was no reason why Plaintiffs could not have waited for the completion of some of the state recounts and state-run investigations into alleged allegations of election-rigging.
(Doc 136, p. 31)
On the post: Florida Presents Its Laughable Appeal For Its Unconstitutional Social Media Content Moderation Law
DeSantis, Governor and Florida Man
On Thursday, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Florida's new definition of riot as unconstitutionally vague and rejected the Governor's argument that it simply codified the common law definition of riot. Actual riots are illegal, but peacefully holding a sign with a group of like-minded fellows while the governor or sheriff thinks someone near you might turn violent cannot be a crime.
From Above the Law: Court Dropkicks FL Law That Redefined Protest As Illegal Riot
Confusing a picnic with a protest march with a riot is a good way to show your understanding of the 1st Amendment is unconstitutionally vague.
See also the judgment in Doc 137 of Dream Defenders v. DeSantis (4:21-cv-00191), District Court, N.D. Florida.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
From Above the Law: "Kraken Bill Comes Due And It’s A Remarkably Reasonable $200K"
That's based on Doc 173 where the State of Michigan civil servants estimate costs as $21,964.75 and the City of Detroit's outside firm estimates a discounted $182,192 in Doc 174. Detroit got a 10% discount because the high volume of election litigation and the outside firm of Fink Bressack helpfully points out that over 60% of their costs were due to their work on the sanctions.
Had Powell gotten this to the Discovery phase, the legal fees would have skyrocketed.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: The Drama continues...
As of September 3, Docs 150-152 detail the current asks by Dominion ($78,944.00), Facebook ($50,000) and CTCL ($64,012.24), but this time they aren't asking Plaintiffs’ counsel, Walker and Fielder, but the judge. Although the amounts changed this is a net bill of over $6000 more than the initially reported negotiating positions.
Dominion writes:
Facebook writes:
Center For Tech And Civic Life writes in footnotes:
CTCL in the main writes:
Perhaps because they are the only of the three to adopt the median rate and perhaps had less need to justify their hourly rates, CTCL is the only one to tackle the issue of the fundraising behind the plaintiff's counsel:
That's the type of salty language you get when you try and sue a non-profit for $160,000,000,000.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Better Late than Never
Restless wrote:
Please elucidate and justify this adjective
What do you know about Judge Nichols that we do not? Or are you using "corrupt" as a adjective which is meaningless in debate similar to "not in 100% lockstep with my personal, undocumented, ignorant prejudgement" ?
Restless wrote:
That's what links are for.
Restless wrote:
That's not what her side said in court in US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, MOTION to Dismiss by DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC, INC., SIDNEY POWELL, SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.. (Doc 22-2) (p. 33 (or 43 if you count the first page as 1)) :
But not only does this "it's just my opinion I actually have video of the company founder engaging in conspiracy" claim not successfully turn a factual claim into a privileged opinion, in fact the evidence behind such claims is missing, leaving Powell defenseless.
Since you throw in a misogynic slight against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel it appears you are making fact-free claims. Nessel did not file papers in King v. Whitmer. Nor do you have evidence that Nessel and Judge Parker spoke on the matter.
So worked up are you that you toss in the initialism BBF which has many meanings. Initially, I assumed you were having a racist Freudian slip and conflated BFF (best friends forever, which would make more sense if you used a useful meaning for "corrupt") with some other race-themed initialism, but possibly "Big Black Female" is established usage in racist or fetish circles. But... Judge Parker is not a big person: 2016 video
This use of "tainted" is commonly seen in a white supremacist propaganda and rarely elsewhere. Please elucidate and justify this adjective.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: 'How was I to know throwing rocks straight up was painful?!'
I'm pretty sure that calling someone a conservative, "right-wing" or even a Trump supporter is protected opinion, not a factual assertion; while calling someone a Republican is likely not defamatory (esp. in Colorado).
Yet Fielder styles himself as a Constitutional Lawyer at times.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
So how about that appeal?
The April order dismissing the civil suit was issued in April.
So O'Rourke, et al v. Dominion Voting Systems, et al is in the 10th Circuit as case 21-1161.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: The Drama continues...
Tuesday was the last day to request the court to amend the motions for sanctions. Instead, a motion to extend that deadline to Tuesday the 14th. Why does the lawyer think he needs extra time?
Again, this was two lawyers who claimed damages of $160,000,000,000 and sought to amend their factually-unsupported generalized complaint demanding unconstitutional personal jurisdiction by recruiting another 152 plaintiffs none of which provided particularized injury or evidence of more that a feeling that something was wrong. To complain to the judge that the ruling was long-winded in the cataloguing of their offenses, the three separate authorities to impose sanctions and the dismissal of monetary sanctions for one individual for not having meaningfully contributed kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no.
But the only known criteria they applied seems to have been the total cost measured against an arbitrary yardstick of $10,000. Dominion finally got them to reply for the first time on August 16. “Walker stated that Plaintiffs’ counsel would not agree to a stipulated sanctions award amount until after they received Dominion’s detailed billing records.” which was sent the next day. Did they respond to the reduced total, the hourly rates, the hours billed? Did they make time to confer at all? Not according to exhibit 1 of Doc 141. So where did the time go?
I'm not a lawyer, but I expect what the meant to say is that they spent a lot of time reading constitutionally protected opinion and fair reporting on official government documents. Any chance now the court will issue a sua sponte order forbidding to file a defamation case in any jurisdiction without this court's approval? I'm just asking for a friend.
Are you really trying to impress the judge by styling yourself as an "Esquire" ???
This kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no. But the bad press coverage seems like a predictable outcome of a predictable order on sanctions in a case where the law makes it predictable that you were going to lose. So why did you file this motion for additional time on the very day the motion was due?
Also, whose fault is it that Fielder has two offices to close when he opened one office on June 2nd (the day after Judge Neureiter ordered a hearing on these sanctions) according to this press release? This is after the lawsuit crashed in District Cort back in April, but the press release touts it with:
Maybe they were thinking of a different case.
Finally his kid has been sick this week and he needs to have a COVID test before the child can return to school.
Now the other lawyer, Ernest Walker, has neither signed the motion nor apparently filed his own. (It may have been mailed in from out-of-state, as I haven't checked all the docket entries to see if Walker has used ECF.) But does Fielder speak for Walker? As late as August 16, Walker felt free to speak for Fielder.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
"Let me play you a mix tape"
In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2:20-cv-01771, District Court, E.D. Wisconsin), attorneys for Governor Tony Evers plays the bench slap mixtape for the Court in Doc 111 — NOTICE by Tony Evers of Supplemental Authority.
Covered are court orders from:
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: A guide for the easily confused
But if I hadn't done this, I would not have known that 50% of the US lives in 9 states.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Under the US Constitution, courts don't have power until disputes are brought to them. Since this case was resolved before an answer to the complaint was filed, there was no factual inquiry beyond the filings (discovery) which would have possibly revealed if there was third-party litigation funding. If there were such evidence and the lawsuit was directed by them for improper purpose, then sanctions could possibly be applied against them. (I think — I'm not qualified to offer legal advice.)
Even if there were, the sanctions available to the court against such real parties of interest is unlikely to exceed the costs of defending the case. (And PACs and other politically motivated persons and organizations can have deep pockets.) But regardless of the motivation of the real parties of interest, the people who did the real damage here were the lawyers who ignored their oaths and duties and consented to this propaganda and harassment effort disguised as litigation.
So the court will make them undo the only damage they can force them to undo and do its best to make sure they never do it again anywhere else. Even discounting the likelihood of disbarment for some, they all burned their reputation for seriousness in front of one of the most serious forums whose opinions grace the Internet.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: From across the pond,
Thank you for that.
I found the packaged interview by Four Corners on You Tube and Above the Law also covered that interview and other Powell stories.
Finally, if you want to see how they edited the interview into the documentary series is in "Fox and the Big Lie" part 2 of 4, also on YouTube.
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Election fraud conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell pressed by Australian reporter: 'Do you ever hear yourself and think it sounds ridiculous?'
YouTube of ABC Show "Fox and the Big Lie" Part 2 of 4 watch?v=gWJhqOPe6rw
Sidney Powell @ 2:37-3:15 / 30:21-31:15 / 33:05-37:16
Mike Lindell @ 11:35-11:55
Janine Pirro @ 17:20-19:38
Howard Kleinhendler @ 25:38-26:13
(Smartmatic Lawyer) Eric Connolly @ 26:50-27:44 / 28:30-29:22 / 29:50-30:20 / 31:24-32:00 / 32:28-32:54 / 39:22-39:29
Giuliani @ 27:48-28:08 / 29:24-29:49
Tucket Carlson @ 37:17:37:37
Just the Powell Interview watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: Courts involved in election fraud coverup!
David wrote:
Is Michigan supposed to be a big state?
Michigan is ranked 10th in population, which means 50% of the country lives in a state with a larger population.
David wrote:
Lawyers have plenty of free speech, outside the litigation privilege. Inside the courtroom and in their legal filings, lawyers have to follow the rules of the court and the legal profession.
According to 6th circuit precedent in Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (2005) :
I don't know if the author of those words, Judge Alice Batchelder, was a liberal judge or not, but Reagan twice nominated her to the District Court and she was nominated to the Sixth Circuit Court by Bush in 1991. So I doubt it.
David wrote:
None of the nine lawyers sanctioned in the King v. Whitmer case discussed above was "fighting for election integrity," but rather the opposite. In the complaint they explicitly asked, not for a true and valid count of the votes but instead “[a]n order requiring Governor Whitmer to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election.” (Doc 1, page 73)
David wrote:
Judge Parker doesn't appear afraid of the truth and had a long hearing in which none of the nine lawyers took any responsibility to ensure the truth was on their side.
David wrote:
Advocating lynching is more likely to see you face the courts than to obtain anything resembling true justice.
David wrote:
The lynch mob idea was so January Sixth. I think you are living in the "old times."
David wrote:
Calling people names for the affront of asking for evidence before deciding that a crime happened is hardly likely to get them to leave their realm of facts for your evidence-free bubble. If you want to convince us, use actual facts and actual arguments based on actual laws, please.
David wrote:
You are using mass media to attempt to communicate your viewpoint. This site is using mass media to advocate one should base their viewpoint on facts and a love of the First Amendment and certain suspicion that delegating tech to the control of companies is giving up an important freedom.
Is the problem mass media or a population of self-satisfied, ignorant and gullible who base which inputs they accept on tribalism and not which inputs are the best?
David wrote:
Most internal sources of vaccine and election misinformation are not trying to kill people but to gain an audience of the gullible and easily persuadable.
David wrote:
Which is why conservatives should be more suspicious of news sources that employ people who simultaneously work for a foreign government-funded propaganda source.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Re: The Drama continues...
In my head the future discussion should go along these lines.
“We may be just simple Colorado lawyers, but we don't see why so many defendants had to plead so many distinct defenses and reasons for sanctions.”
“Do you mean to say ... they shouldn't make a Federal case out of it?”
“Exactly!”
“Well, maybe you should have thought about that before dragging two corporations, a non-profit, four governors and various state officials across the country into Federal court while demanding $160,000,000,000.”
“... but their hourly rates are so expensive and they worked so many hours!”
“That is not their fault.”
“... but $10,000 is reasonable.”
“It's not about what you consider reasonable. It's about their work and what the court already said was reasonable.”
“... but if it is much more than $10,000 then we wouldn't have made a profit.”
“That is not their fault.”
tl;dr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iazRuJn71Q
Current asks appear to be: (Doc 141, Exhibit 1)
but then the Colorado lawyers again extend the matter by refusing to jointly sign any stipulations. (Doc 142, Doc 144) or negotiate with the corporations (Doc 143, Doc 145 ?) and non-profit (Doc 146).
If they insist on the $10,000 figure, they are both going to any remaining credibility with the judge as to their capability to be reasonable and incur additional costs.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
The Drama continues...
After the August 3 order granting sanctions, the lawyers continue dispute that they owe anything and seemingly just now notice that corporate lawyers in the private sector are paid much better than the civil servants in the public sector, which they would have been clued in about if they had consulted the guidelines for reasonable fees the judge referred them to.
Colorado Bar's 2017 Economic Survey table on page 34.
Doc 143 Dominion on Sanctions
Doc 147 Plaintiff's Lawyers on Sanctions
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
Re: lazy read
All the defendants who meaningfully contributed to the defense to get paid, but not Davis since a) not a defendant, and b) not that helpful. All nine of the plaintiff's lawyers are ordered to 12 hours of remedial education with a essay addressed to the court required, and all lawyers are referred to all available disciplinary bodies.
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Re: Glee
Pepperidge Farms remembers
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
Re: Glee
restless wrote:
You haven't been paying attention. This site frequently editorializes in favor of bench slaps of copyright trolls and other lawyers who have been found to abuse the judicial process. Is goes beyond simple schadenfreude and encompasses a sense of richly deserved justice being done. As such you must engage with the particular facts, rules, duties and oaths if you are to make sense of why both the judge and the site feel sanctions are deserved, or to meaningfully comment on them.
restless wrote:
[citation required] "corrupt" in this context, without a specific allegation of a specific court being improperly influenced by specific individuals for a specific outcome isn't corruption but just your inability to comprehend the reasoning of the judgment or the facts.
Your objection to the courts makes no sense. If all of the US Federal courts are "corrupt" then why did plaintiffs file the case in the District Court of Colorado when elections are carries out by the officials of and under the laws of the individual states? Magistrate Judge Neureiter is not to blame for the fact that you need a genuine grievance before a Federal court has Article III authority to give you anything, and the plaintiffs had no evidence of anything other than a anti-democratic PR campaign by the loser.
restless wrote:
But this case wasn't about voters as it was the lawyers who invented the lawsuit and then went around looking for plaintiffs. (Doc 136, p. 58). And if the lawyers thought it was about fraud, don't they have a duty to be serious about it?
restless wrote:
It's not this court that says they don't have standing. but the Supreme Court in 1974, 1989, 1992, 2007 and every other time it has been asked since.
In an annotation to Article III of the US Constitution, the Congressional Research Service writes:
So in light of this, it looks like the judge was completely right when he wrote:
restless wrote:
Isn't it sufficient to claim that they raised public funds on a subject that their plaintiffs alleged to be serious to them without doing the work required by serious lawyers?
The judge found that they should have spent considerable time and money on making sure they had a case before deciding to file it and put a burden on the courts and the defendants. Like with their standing issue and their personal jurisdiction issue, there was no evidence that they attempted their Rule 11 duties with regard to plausible case.
restless wrote:
Again, the lawyers started this lawsuit as a doomed effort with no legitimately viable route to obtaining relief from the court. They did no research worthy of the name but merely cut-and-paste the work of other doomed (and in many cases, dead and debunked) claims from other cases. And they are sanctioned for having neither 1) law or 2) facts on their side. But what they got was a PR campaign and fund-raising drive based on their claimed hopes to recover $1000 for each of 160 million potential plaintiffs (registered voters). (Doc 1, p 86)
Luring people to invest seed money in a doomed get-rich-quick scheme is a classic grift and the alternate explanations don't immediately seem favorable in light of the US Constitution, the paucity of relevant facts in their cut-and-paste affidavits, their arguments duplicating those in other lawsuits, and their choice to file in Colorado. They raised (according the the judge) $95,000 and to the extent they spent any of it, it was wasted.
restless wrote:
**It was a busy week. In fact, Powell, Wood and other got their sanctions on Wednesday. (King v. Whitmer, Doc 172 (2:20-cv-13134)
District Court, E.D. Michigan)
restless wrote:
Did Trump have anything to due with it? The Colorado lawyers went out of their way to signal that they were pro-Trump despite claiming to work in the interested of all registered voters, over whom about 4.4% more of which (7.05 million) voted for Biden. They even took time to quote a Trump tweet quoting a baseless OANN story to try and give it gravitas. (Doc 1, p 49)
It's not up to me to judge if they filed this lousy lawsuit because they are unskilled lawyers or bad lawyers, but they spent far more time preaching to the Trump/OANN choir than building a solid lawsuit. Since they sought a payout of $160,000,000,000 . (Doc 1, p 82)
On the post: Former Trump Lawyer Facing Sanctions In Michigan Now Saying The Things She Said Were Opinions Are Actually Facts
Sanctions!
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/08/25/parker.opinion.in.powell.wood.sanctions.case.pdf
Next >>