Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Twice Horn is this board's John Roberts.  He's concerned with maintaining the patina of decorum over this footage of monkeys dancing in a tipped over portapotty. 

Really not.

I just happen to think that the two items of evidence were mishandled, not intentionally falsely represented.

A lawyer should do better.  That is, at the very minimum, wildly embarrassing.  But that whole thing is 104 pages of wildly embarrassing legal work.  I'd be hard-pressed to figure out which aspect is the most embarrassing.

Quibbling about something that may have been intentionally or accidentally represented as undated is mostly immaterial.  Particularly in the context of all that rubbish.  You don't need to rely on the falsity of those two exhibits to trash the credibility of the entire work.  That is the thing that is perhaps most irritating about the whole debate.

It's like "oooh ohh, teacher, I caught them in a lie (maybe)."  In the grand context of that heap of shit, that's nothing.

Here's what I expect would happen if someone were called on the carpet for that:

Lawyer:  your honor, we got those two exhibits off the internet to show that the GA SOS certified the Dominion equipment and when.   Somehow, portions of the documents, including the dates, got cut off.  When we cited the material in the complaint, we noticed there were no dates, and said so.  That's all there was to it.

Judge:  Don't you think you should have been more careful about citing complete documents to the Court?

Lawyer:  Yes your honor, we should have, we made a mistake.  We should have gone back and gotten the entire documents and then we would have seen the dates.  However, we didn't argue or attach much significance to the date or lack thereof anywhere in our argument, so we respectfully submit that it is of minimal materiality.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Twice Horn is this board's John Roberts.  He's concerned with maintaining the patina of decorum over this footage of monkeys dancing in a tipped over portapotty. 

This is either libelous of TwiceHorn or you have too high an opinion of John Roberts.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Deepstate RINO!  Barr was once seen eating kung pao chicken - dudes, he is OWNED by the Chicoms!  "Dominion" and "William" both have two i's in them -- TWO EYES!  That means that Q is watching them, and he sees what is going on.  All will soon be revealed....TRUST THE PLAN!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I also think that we (the royal we) excuse incompetence way too much, because at least its not malicious.

Fuck that. Incompetence is frequently just as bad, damaging, dangerous, whatever as maliciousness. Both should be punished, sanctioned, scorned, fined, discredited, whatever.

The legal profession has more barriers to entry than perhaps any other profession on the planet.  It would seem that the purpose of those barriers is to insure competency.  

Given that, I'm baffled as to why TH wants to excuse something by assuming incompetency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The legal profession has more barriers to entry than perhaps any other profession on the planet.  It would seem that the purpose of those barriers is to insure competency.  

Given that, I'm baffled as to why TH wants to excuse something by assuming incompetency.

Well, it's about the same as a CPA.  Less rigorous than the medical profession.

Less rigorous than a lot of quasi-medical professions, like psychologists and counselors.

And that's just licensing requirements.

Your own profession requires more academic credentials than most lawyers have.

And, being a lawyer for the last 30 years, I've known a fair share of incompetent ones.  

And, everything about that complaint screams carelessness and incompetence.  There's an example on every single page of that 104 page complaint, and a shitload more in the 30 exhibits.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be much more inclined to excuse something as incompetence or give the attorney the benefit of the doubt, if Powell didn't repeatedly exhibit "incompetence" in various ways while filing lawsuits on behalf of the President of the United States, trying to overturn an election, knowing that the documents she is submitting are purportedly of international importance and scrutiny.

This isn't a single, dumb error in a routine slip and fall case where the attorney either did something stupid because he/she was rushing or something slipped through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

It would seem that the purpose of those barriers is to insure competency.  

After more than 11 years of practicing law, I can wholeheartedly say this is wrong. Well, I guess it may *seem* that way, but a JD and passing the bar exam isn’t quite the feat you may believe. A lot of morons are able to practice law and file lawsuits. A shocking amount of morons. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

this is intentional on her part...she's playing fast and loose.  she should be sanctioned at minimum, most likely she should be immediately barred from practicing in that Court and prosecuting the present action barring a show cause hearing on why shouldn't be barred and sanctioned.

Oh but come on, she just attempted to deceive the court to overturn the result of a free and fair election. It's not like she did something really serious like make the jerkoff hand gesture or get into a single car accident while on pills she became hopelessly addicted to as a result of a pain condition and aggressive pharma sales strategy.

 

12 minutes ago, mdmost said:

NOW BARR'S IN ON IT!!!!! -Qanon morons

Not a joke, they are actually saying that. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I would be much more inclined to excuse something as incompetence or give the attorney the benefit of the doubt, if Powell didn't repeatedly exhibit "incompetence" in various ways while filing lawsuits on behalf of the President of the United States, trying to overturn an election, knowing that the documents she is submitting are purportedly of international importance and scrutiny.

This isn't a single, dumb error in a routine slip and fall case where the attorney either did something stupid because he/she was rushing or something slipped through.

The main thing is that the dates lopped off those two documents is of no significance to the insane argument they made.  They gave it one or two sentences in the complaint.  That's it.
 

Quote

Defendants Kemp and Raffensperger rushed through the purchase of Dominion voting machines and software in 2019 for the 2020 Presidential Election4. A certificate from the Secretary of State was awarded to Dominion Voting Systems but is undated. (See attached hereto Exh. 5, copy Certification for Dominion Voting Systems from Secretary of State). Similarly a test report is signed by Michael Walker as Project Manager but is also undated. (See Exh. 6, Test Report for Dominion Voting Systems, Democracy Suite 5-4-A) 

Was spelling "district"  --DISTRCOICT--  part of Powell's evil plan?

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

After more than 11 years of practicing law, I can wholeheartedly say this is wrong. Well, I guess it may *seem* that way, but a JD and passing the bar exam isn’t quite the feat you may believe. A lot of morons are able to practice law and file lawsuits. A shocking amount of morons. 

I have no problem with the attorneys permitting morons to practice their profession. I do have a huge problem with lawyers and doctors permitting bad actors to openly and obviously abuse their office. 
Egregious liars don't last in enterprise software sales. There's no licensing involved, they just lose credibility in the market and among their professional peers and get shit talked out of that vertical, at least. I have no idea why that doesn't happen with lawyers and doctors, who appear to not only decline to use the many formal mechanisms at their disposal but from the outside looking in, appear to engage in a conspiracy of silence to protect the worst people in their field. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The main thing is that the dates lopped off those two documents is of no significance to the insane argument they made.  They gave it one or two sentences in the complaint.  That's it.

Was spelling "district"  --DISTRCOICT--  part of Powell's evil plan?

No.  But Edison County was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Powell didn't follow up that spelling "with one or two sentences in the complaint" arguing that is how you spell district.

Well, as you see above, they didn't really argue the equivalent of that, either.

And, I would not be opposed to seeing the various attorneys on the complaint sanctioned for filing a really shitty pleading, on a number of levels.  But I think undue focus on those two exhibits is unwarranted.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The main thing is that the dates lopped off those two documents is of no significance to the insane argument they made.  They gave it one or two sentences in the complaint.  That's it.
 

Was spelling "district"  --DISTRCOICT--  part of Powell's evil plan?

According to Q, it was absolutely part of the plan. Every misspelled word, typo and fictitious county are purposeful.  Its a signal to the appellate courts an SCOTUS.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

After more than 11 years of practicing law, I can wholeheartedly say this is wrong. Well, I guess it may *seem* that way, but a JD and passing the bar exam isn’t quite the feat you may believe. A lot of morons are able to practice law and file lawsuits. A shocking amount of morons. 

I was trying to be generous.  The point of all barriers to entry is to increase the salaries of those who get through the barriers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, qwertyu1234 said:

Wait, what is the one case Trump won?

I believe it was the one in Pennsylvania on election night where he sued because poll watchers had to be 10 ft away from the workers, the court let them go to 6 ft., so the big win was 4 ft. for poll watchers. 

Now Trump claims their poll watchers weren't allowed to be there, so apparently his huge 4 ft. court victory was for people who were not even present. Which makes sense. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

By Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing.

I remember when DiGenova's fat ass regularly appeared on talk shows, like "Geraldo".  The fucking self-parody regularly held and mouthed a giant unlit cigar.  Like the biggest cigar  imaginable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Exhibit eleventy billion in the case of "these people are completely fucking insane, and may irrevocably damage the Republic and any hope for a functioning democracy."

We have a not insignificant number of Americans who want the sitting president to invoke martial law because they don't like the result of an election.  Who want the military to arrest political enemies.

These are words, actually being published and amplified by a shitload of American people.

It really doesn't matter what happens from here on out.  The Republic is already lost.  It's just a matter of when it actually dies.

I can't call Ivanka a bimbo, but this shit head can basically call for an armed revolt.  Genius move, tweetie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I believe it was the one in Pennsylvania on election night where he sued because poll watchers had to be 10 ft away from the workers, the court let them go to 6 ft., so the big win was 4 ft. for poll watchers. 

Now Trump claims their poll watchers weren't allowed to be there, so apparently his huge 4 ft. court victory was for people who were not even present. Which makes sense. 

It was actually this one, tossing a small number of ballots of voters in PA who had not verified their identity before a deadline.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/11/12/trump-campaign-election-2020-presidential-pennsylvania-lawsuit-ballots-late-identification/stories/202011120132

Edited by lemonlime
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Really not.

I just happen to think that the two items of evidence were mishandled, not intentionally falsely represented.

A lawyer should do better.  That is, at the very minimum, wildly embarrassing.  But that whole thing is 104 pages of wildly embarrassing legal work.  I'd be hard-pressed to figure out which aspect is the most embarrassing.

Quibbling about something that may have been intentionally or accidentally represented as undated is mostly immaterial.  Particularly in the context of all that rubbish.  You don't need to rely on the falsity of those two exhibits to trash the credibility of the entire work.  That is the thing that is perhaps most irritating about the whole debate.

It's like "oooh ohh, teacher, I caught them in a lie (maybe)."  In the grand context of that heap of shit, that's nothing.

Here's what I expect would happen if someone were called on the carpet for that:

Lawyer:  your honor, we got those two exhibits off the internet to show that the GA SOS certified the Dominion equipment and when.   Somehow, portions of the documents, including the dates, got cut off.  When we cited the material in the complaint, we noticed there were no dates, and said so.  That's all there was to it.

Judge:  Don't you think you should have been more careful about citing complete documents to the Court?

Lawyer:  Yes your honor, we should have, we made a mistake.  We should have gone back and gotten the entire documents and then we would have seen the dates.  However, we didn't argue or attach much significance to the date or lack thereof anywhere in our argument, so we respectfully submit that it is of minimal materiality.

Pretty sure the focus on that is to point out what was likely an intentional lie to the court. I haven't seen a single person saying it is the only problem. The overall problem is the subject of every post here. They are lying. There is no evidence whatsoever of fraud. What is most embarrassing is a gaggle of "lawyers" violating Rule 11 by filing frivolous claims that have no good-faith basis (no evidence = no good faith basis), and very likely committing perjury. The criticisms aren't about incompetence or even professional negligence, it's about submitting outright lies and ruining all credibility as a lawyer, all for the sake of an egomaniac who has no path to reversing the election that he lost. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...