GeorgiAg said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Some PATHETIC moderator is deleting nearly every post I make. Yet, OP is responding and has stated that he used not downvoting my posts.

WTF staff???

---

I"m a big boy. I know y'all think I'm wrong. I think you are wrong about Trump. I think he's a dangerous wanna-be Putin style autocrat. I'm here to discuss.

Staff warned other posters before about "you voted for this" getting old - I didn't object then either. I think it's kind of funny.

---

Is this the kind of stuff you think Trump would do in his 2nd term? So you voted for biden to avoid it? (Credit to good poster)

JUST IN - Biden allied groups, including the DNC, plan to engage fact-checkers and work with SMS carriers to "dispel misinformation" about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages (Politico)

— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) July 12, 2021

---

Yeah, I'm gonna give that the 24 hour rule. A government asking private companies to scan text messages doesn't sound Kosher to me, if they did that. I guess Twitter and Facebook already do that to an extent, but it's not the same. Those are messages posted in a public forum, not person to person.

This sounds like an exaggerated sound bite. We'll see what they say to this.

---

But Trump would have definitely done something like this right? I mean, he is orange man bad right?

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, other than grand jury proceedings, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.

The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer's knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(I). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

GeorgiAg said:

---

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, other than grand jury proceedings, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is disbarment.

---

Then Fink is in big trouble. He flat out lied about Melissa Carone employee of Dominion, affidavits contained.

That's just for starters.

Question? Do you require all of your clients to pass polygraph tests before you file suit?

leftcoastaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

That "hearing" today was a farce.

---

One lawyer's "farce" is another lawyer's sanctions.

---

Do you have any concrete evidence that ethical canons and disciplinary rules were violated? Nothing I saw/heard today held much water on that issue.

That's why it was a farce but not the only reason. Wasn't conducted in proper motion practice, for one thing.

---

Of course nothing you heard today held much water because you have been team Kraken since day one and you'll make every excuse in your support of them. It was about lack of due diligence and factual investigation. The affidavits are complete manure and the lawyers who submitted them to the court made exactly zero effort to find out if they were credible or not. Clearly they knew what they were doing and the judge called them out on it one affidavit after another affidavit after another affidavit. 90% change they all get sanctioned. The only farce was the lawsuit to begin with.

---

No, that is incorrect. I dropped Sidney and Lin a looong time ago. I'm not defending them, per se but when I see a violation of the process in a court proceeding being conducted in full by a federal judge, I throw the BS flag.

What happened today was not proper motion practice.

The hearing format was unusual. I agree with you there. They will try to assert that it is a violation of their due process but they have the opportunity to file additional briefs in 14 days. This motion has been pending since January.

based on your earlier post, its because they didn't have the last word at a hearing? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess thats not going to be a due process violation

BMX Bandit said:

---

didn't see or read anything other than this thread. what was not proper motion practice?

---

Well, the movants didn't really present their case. It was the judge who asked the questions and went line by line through affidavits that she found "concerning" because she had decided that the plaintiffs' lawyers had not conducted enough investigation prior to filing suit. Her main complaint.

Now, think about that for a minute. A complaint that references and attaches 950 pages of affidavits and exhibits is not investigated enough? The affidavits she, as the judge, was cross examining plaintiffs' lawyers about were sworn by actual witnesses who were present when they said they were (undisputed) and relayed what they saw. Those affidavits corroborated what the experts who noted the statistical anomalies during the vote counting were saying. Many different witnesses and experts saying essentially the same thing is no longer acceptable evidence?

The problem is there has been no evidentiary hearing in this case wherein each party gets to vet the other side's evidence but this judge did that on her own today within the parameters of a sanctions hearing for their making "false statements" based solely on unvetted nor cross examined dueling affidavits from defendants?

After hours of the judge going through affidavits with a fine tooth comb, she then called for "closing arguments" and made the plaintiffs' attorneys go first before the movants' attorney. And then restricted the ability of the responding attorneys to address what the movants' attorney had said.

Has motion practice in federal court really devolved to that point?

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

DallasGrad18 said:

---

Just like you refuse to see the fact that mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting are the sole reason the dementia patient you voted for is occupying the White House today. Are you proud of voting for someone in the mental state that Biden is in?

Fact of the matter is you've conceded that unsolicited mail-in ballots are bad, but you're defending results determined by unsolicited mail-in ballots. The right is correct to be skeptical of the results. You are a lemming to say it's all conspiracy theories, and you should be the #1 cheerleader for any and all scrutiny of the election. If you are right, it will be proven.

You can disagree with the notion that the election was fraudulent. However, you have no ground to stand on to claim the right is acting like petulant conspiracy theorists when the other side spent 4 years drumming up bull**** to undermine a duly elected president. Your best move is to shut the hell up and hope the audits don't prove you wrong because your position is just as unfounded as the position that there was massive fraud.

---

It doesn't seem to me that you know what ballot harvesting is.

---

Ditto.

---

I use the term correctly. Your use of the term makes no sense at all unless you think that it means something entirely different.

Ballot harvesting is the practice of someone picking up completed mail in ballots from voters and delivering them to the drop off point. For example, if your grandparents are unable to get out of the house and so you pick up their ballots and drop them off on their behalf, that is ballot harvesting. The practice is legal in a number of states. I think that n some states, legal ballot harvesting is limited to family members.

Ballot harvesting is not limited to Democrats -- both parties do it. For example, in the 2020 election, the GOP in California set up their own "official" ballot drop off boxes. That is ballot harvesting.

---

Ballot harvesting is also the practice of sending operatives to senior living facilities, going door-to-door to "help" the occupants complete their ballots (if, of course, that step is completed... Completely unnecessary, btw, as the ballots can be gathered and completed without the recipient's input and/or knowledge), and taking the whole kit & caboodle to an official drop off point.

This version of ballot harvesting also works well with low income housing projects.

I think the point is that the broad possibilities of actions or scenarios that can occur under ballot harvesting - some legitimate, some not - indicate that the term 'ballot harvesting' needs to be better defined.

---

I've never seen the term used that way. Also, after some quick web searching, I can't find anything about it meaning anything other than collecting another person's ballot that has been filled in.

What would concern me about actual ballot harvesting would be that someone could possibly collect ballots from those likely to vote for the other side and then discard the ballots or turn them in too late to be counted.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

didn't see or read anything other than this thread. what was not proper motion practice?

---

Well, the movants didn't really present their case. It was the judge who asked the questions and went line by line through affidavits that she found "concerning" because she had decided that the plaintiffs' lawyers had not conducted enough investigation prior to filing suit. Her main complaint.

Now, think about that for a minute. A complaint that references and attaches 950 pages of affidavits and exhibits is not investigated enough? The affidavits she, as the judge, was cross examining plaintiffs' lawyers about were sworn by actual witnesses who were present when they said they were (undisputed) and relayed what they saw. Those affidavits corroborated what the experts who noted the statistical anomalies during the vote counting were saying. Many different witnesses and experts saying essentially the same thing is no longer acceptable evidence?

The problem is there has been no evidentiary hearing in this case wherein each party gets to vet the other side's evidence but this judge did that on her own today within the parameters of a sanctions hearing for their making "false statements" based solely on unvetted nor cross examined dueling affidavits from defendants?

After hours of the judge going through affidavits with a fine tooth comb, she then called for "closing arguments" and made the plaintiffs' attorneys go first before the movants' attorney. And then restricted the ability of the responding attorneys to address what the movants' attorney had said.

Has motion practice in federal court really devolved to that point?

---

When the substance is indefensible the argument always turns toward the process.... You can see the arguments devolve from the lawyers when they sunk to the "I wasn't served correctly" defense.

Lin's lawyer kicked some sense into him.....which is kinda funny because he argued in front of the judge that he needed extra time to write his brief because he needed to find representation (which I guess he found just a couple hours after the hearing?). Also claimed he needed extra time to get the transcript of the hearing so he could present it to potential council. Lin's not so smart.

Quote:

---

When the substance is indefensible the argument always turns toward the process.... You can see the arguments devolve from the lawyers when they sunk to the "I wasn't served correctly" defense.

---

That's because you are not a lawyer and know nothing about the differences between substantive law and procedural law. When cases get thrown out on "technicality" that's a procedural issue not a substantive one.

Motion practice in federal court is very highly regulated. There are volumes written about that particular niche of the law.

Quote:

---

Lin's lawyer kicked some sense into him.....which is kinda funny because he argued in front of the judge that he needed extra time to write his brief because he needed to find representation (which I guess he found just a couple hours after the hearing?). Also claimed he needed extra time to get the transcript of the hearing so he could present it to potential council. Lin's not so smart.

---

Again, you don't understand the procedure here.

But continue to think you have a clue. I always enjoy a good laugh at such nonsense.

Oh I know for a fact that this judge will impose sanctions. She's a partisan with an axe to grind and doesn't care about the law. That was evident today that she in no way was an impartial arbiter. She took a side and did so forceably and without any doubt. She's just a female Emmett Sullivan. Bad judge.

Old McDonald said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

So, Lin Wood appears to have posted a screenshot or video clip of the hearing after they were explicitly instructed by the judge not to do so. If you wanted to piss off the judge even more, this is the way to do it.

Lin Wood on Telegram said the six-hour hearing he sat through today over whether he should be sanctioned for his (now disputed) efforts to overturn Michigan’s election results was propaganda. “I thought I was attending a hearing in Venezuela or Communist China.” pic.twitter.com/41krphgX8E

— Dave Thomas (@DaveThomas5150) July 12, 2021

---

so i was right earlier in this thread when i said this:

Quote:

---

their behavior in the hearing (combative, unapologetic) is part of the act, appealing to the kinds of people they can continue to dupe in the future.

---

wood acts a fool in front of the judge, then turns around and runs to his telegram audience to complain about how he was treated (bonus points for alluding to communist china/venezuela, gotta throw in some crowd pleasers!). in doing so makes things worse on himself and draws a rebuke from his own counsel, but as long as he can feign victimhood to whatever suckers still think he has credibility he'll seize the opportunity.

---

Not defending Lin, he done went round the bend as the old saying goes.

But you really believe that? You just went round the bend, with him.

LOL.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

M-K-TAG said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

M-K-TAG said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

M-K-TAG said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

---

If that was Antifa on the other side of the window, you called those guys patriot heroes. Instead it's a bunch of crazed Trump supporters trying to disrupt the vote calculations. Why did that mob think that the election supervisors would let into the tabulation room? The actual observers were already in the room, but it's a funny pic for you guys to misconstrue what actually happened that day.

---

What you fail to mention is they kicked out the Republican observers... You are the one lying here. You have zero credibility. The only crazed people are the ones that were kicking out observers threatening them with violence etc... But hey bring back your stupid scoreboard so we can all have a laugh.

---

No observers were kicked out. That's a lie, just like all the other lies that Lin Wood and Sidney Powell perpetuated after the election and are currently being grilled about from a federal judge. Sorry you fell for them. Sidney and Lin are about it get what's coming to them for all their lies that they spread. That's what this thread is about.

You're right it was a big laugh to see the GOP lawsuits fail 0-60 after the election. Probably going to update it after this hearing today.

---

Yes they were.. We can go back and forth on this all day long. I could give you the evidence but you will just triple down and make up some nonsense to deny it. What planet do you live on?? Obviously not the one called reality. Sidney and Lin got their facts wrong but everyone knows the election was stolen.. maybe not by Dominion but it was stolen by other means. The only big lie is the one repeated by you and your minions that this was the most secure election in history and no fraud occurred. puhleeze. Election was stolen.. you know it,, I know it, We all know it.

---

Just like the Iowa caucus was stolen too.....



2016 same bs. You've been lied to for so long you have no idea.

By the way, hearing is still going on and Lin and Sidney are getting roasted. Just uncovering more lies that have warped your reality. Their only defense so far is that none of them actually read the affidavits that they submitted to the court so there is no way they can be held responsible if they were full of lies.

---

Sidney and Lin went in the wrong direction.. so what.. they knew something was amiss with the election so I give them credit for that..... . I know what my own eyes see... no one is lying to me.. except you. Election was stolen that's obvious.. . Your obsession with them and Trump is kinda creepy but whatever makes you happy....

---

..and Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucus. Yep nobody is lying to you. SMH.

---

Weak... you didn't read what I said..... Like a freaking chatty cathy doll you are just repeating the same BS over and over.

Star for knowing what a Chatty Kathy doll was.

Any mention of Sidney Powell's algorithm genius son at the hearing? The one like the transgender from Billions on Showtime. I had read here that he has cracked the code and the Kraken was released.

NM in light of the deleted posts.

My phone doesn't have an auto-correct feature. It does have an auto-incorrect feature that works very well.

So, there have been developments.
When we last left off, Wood published some clips of the hearing after he was told not to record the hearing. So the other side filed a motion asking why Wood shouldn't be held in contempt for publishing the video. Then, seeing as how things were going into the ****ter, Campbell filed a motion to get the video released with a bunch of very non-compelling reasons (mainly the media was making fun of them for wearing size 54 clown shoes into the hearing). The judge said nah because "you can make your own supplemental briefs without the video; use the transcript like everyone else does." The crazy pants thing in all of this is that Wood has a very compelling reason to publish the video on First Amendment grounds, but he may have done this in the worst way possible. And none of that was raised in the motion to release the video. That may come up if the judge decides to hold a hearing on a contempt charge for Wood. I don't think this will happen, since Wood took down the video quickly.

As mentioned above, there's going to be supplemental briefing. So this is going to turn into a circular firing squad, and instead of throwing each other under the bus, they're going to trip over the curb and fall in front of the bus themselves, because that's just how they are right now. And Lin Wood desperately needs his own attorney now, since there's going to be a massive conflict of interest between him and Powell.

v