Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

[Phil1111 1,149]

56 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Indeed. They put their signature on it. You seemed to imply that claiming they didn't read it was a solid defense.

Obviously its not but they can hardly admit that they knew their submission was false or misleading. Evidently the affidavit contained a statement from a polling station worker. Who stated that they saw votes being switched. The judge asked the lawyers if they interviewed that witness. They stated that they didn't know who directly talked to that "witness". But it was none of them. So they swore that hearsay statements were true.

It sounds as if they are collectively trying to flimflam a judge who has seen and heard it all before.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Obviously its not but they can hardly admit that they knew their submission was false or misleading.

They could have and it might have actually helped them. Admitting you made a mistake and promising to do better might result in a better outcome. Wouldn't be surprised if based on their "performance" they pissed off the judge enough to have the book thrown at them.

[ryoder 1,590]

Banker convicted of bribery for plot to land Trump administration job

A former Chicago bank executive was convicted Tuesday in a scheme to arrange $16 million in loans for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in exchange for a high-level position in the Trump administration.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

22 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Banker convicted of bribery for plot to land Trump administration job

A former Chicago bank executive was convicted Tuesday in a scheme to arrange $16 million in loans for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in exchange for a high-level position in the Trump administration.

Ahhh but those emails, Benghazi and Hunter Biden.

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

3 hours ago, ryoder said:

Banker convicted of bribery for plot to land Trump administration job

A former Chicago bank executive was convicted Tuesday in a scheme to arrange $16 million in loans for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in exchange for a high-level position in the Trump administration.

Hi Robert,

It just keeps getting better & better.  The laughs just keep coming.

Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Don't think he has. He has just announced he plans to. So he can fundraise off the announcement. Highly likely the lawsuit never happens.

I hope he does.

The tech firms with all the lawyers in the entire world will bury him.

[jakee 1,564]

15 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Obviously its not but they can hardly admit that they knew their submission was false or misleading. Evidently the affidavit contained a statement from a polling station worker. Who stated that they saw votes being switched. The judge asked the lawyers if they interviewed that witness. They stated that they didn't know who directly talked to that "witness". But it was none of them. So they swore that hearsay statements were true.

I cannot imagine that this is the way it works. It makes sense that a lawyer should not submit statements that they definitively know are not true, but demanding that they can only submit sworn witness statements that they definitively know are true is an impossible standard. 
 

Say you’ve got a witness who says they were in the counting room and saw something and you’ve seen proof they weren’t even there, ok you can’t submit that. If they were in the room and tell you they saw aliens beam the ballots up, who’s  to say that didn’t happen? If you want to submit it then it’s a matter for the courts (and your professional reputation) to decide on the validity. Unless the lawyers invented the poll worker and their statements out of whole cloth it’s not their responsibility to swear to the truth of it.

 

(None of this is to say that their team wasn’t shockingly lax and unprofessional in the way they gathered and presented ‘evidence’ in this case.)

Edited July 14, 2021 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

I cannot imagine that this is the way it works. It makes sense that a lawyer should not submit statements that they definitively know are not true, but demanding that they can only submit sworn witness statements that they definitively know are true is an impossible standard. 

Correct. Though as a sworn officer of the court they do have to ensure the following:

 

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

 

There are also ABA ethics rules, as well as the obligation to make statements in court that have a basis in truth.

[TriGirl 333]

13 hours ago, jakee said:

On 7/14/2021 at 8:33 AM, Phil1111 said:

Obviously its not but they can hardly admit that they knew their submission was false or misleading. Evidently the affidavit contained a statement from a polling station worker. Who stated that they saw votes being switched. The judge asked the lawyers if they interviewed that witness. They stated that they didn't know who directly talked to that "witness". But it was none of them. So they swore that hearsay statements were true.

I cannot imagine that this is the way it works. It makes sense that a lawyer should not submit statements that they definitively know are not true, but demanding that they can only submit sworn witness statements that they definitively know are true is an impossible standard. 

Except that the judge didn't ask if they knew it was true or false (the claim by the poll worker that was submitted as evidence).  The question was whether any of the sponsoring lawyers had also interviewed that witness.  You can certainly leave it to the source's own statement to stand for itself, but the judge's disbelief was in the validity of that statement if just the statement was passed to a lawyer who then submitted it as part of the claim.  How does that lawyer, who is supposed to affirm that everything they submit is at least valid, support a claim that an actual poll worker actually believed that is what they saw -- and not just a "statement" made up and slipped in by another party?  They never talked to the witness.  One step further, no one could verify even who collected that statement and entered it as evidence.  And yet, as the group of lawyers collectively filing the complaint, they want the court to accept that the whole package is valid evidence?  Nope, the court isn't buying it.

[Phil1111 1,149]

8 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Except that the judge didn't ask if they knew it was true or false ...  One step further, no one could verify even who collected that statement and entered it as evidence.  And yet, as the group of lawyers collectively filing the complaint, they want the court to accept that the whole package is valid evidence?  Nope, the court isn't buying it.

Thats why one of the more intelligent lawyers was crying. The others were using the mumbo-jumbo "I know nothing" defense.

[ryoder 1,590]

deleted

Edited July 15, 2021 by ryoder

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

9 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Except that the judge didn't ask if they knew it was true or false (the claim by the poll worker that was submitted as evidence).  The question was whether any of the sponsoring lawyers had also interviewed that witness.  You can certainly leave it to the source's own statement to stand for itself, but the judge's disbelief was in the validity of that statement if just the statement was passed to a lawyer who then submitted it as part of the claim.  How does that lawyer, who is supposed to affirm that everything they submit is at least valid, support a claim that an actual poll worker actually believed that is what they saw -- and not just a "statement" made up and slipped in by another party?  They never talked to the witness.  One step further, no one could verify even who collected that statement and entered it as evidence.  And yet, as the group of lawyers collectively filing the complaint, they want the court to accept that the whole package is valid evidence?  Nope, the court isn't buying it.

^This.

The lawyers submitted affidavits that basically stated 'the witness said this'.

 

Now they are saying they hadn't even read the statement, let alone actually spoken to the witness. 

What the witness said, whether it was true or not, or any of that is totally irrelevant. 

They pretty much committed perjury when they submitted a statement that was a lie.

As an aside, it's rather funny (not really) that so many of the people that want the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in public places (courthouses) are completely ignoring the fact that one of those commandments says something about "bearing false witness."

[Phil1111 1,149]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

.....As an aside, it's rather funny (not really) that so many of the people that want the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in public places (courthouses) are completely ignoring the fact that one of those commandments says something about "bearing false witness."

For the GOP there are the additional issues of adultery, theft then the big one. No gods before god. Yet trump proclaimed himself as "the chosen one".

[winsor 236]

On 2/22/2021 at 11:51 AM, kallend said:

So much winning.

Trump and Charlie Sheen have too much in common.  Sheen has drugs for an excuse, Trump apparently comes by it naturally.

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

Hi folks,

And, Trump loses another one:  We look forward to resuming discovery in this case about a fraud on hard-working Americans perpetrated by Donald Trump and three of his adult children

Trump Family Loses Big Appeals Court Fight to Force Fraud and Deceptive Practices Lawsuit into Secret Arbitration (msn.com)

I hope that the loses continue to pile up.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

Department of Justice rules IRS must give Trump’s tax returns to Congress

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

Hi folks,

I think this should be in the category of Unexpected Results:   plaintiffs sued on behalf of all registered American voters and said the 2020 election involved a conspiracy between governors, secretaries of state, election officials, Dominion, Facebook and more

Judge sanctions lawyers for bringing 2020 election conspiracy lawsuit - POLITICO

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,110]

Rosen testifies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/us/politics/jeffrey-rosen-trump-election.html

 

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

17 hours ago, kallend said:

Rosen testifies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/us/politics/jeffrey-rosen-trump-election.html

 

 

Yeah.

Trump knew he lost.
He knew the election was legit.

He tried to do everything he could to steal it anyway.

Of course, the idiots will still believe it was 'stolen' from him.

'Cuz they believe him. And they're idiots.

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

Hi folks,

Not looking so good for Rudy:   "This will end badly for Rudy."

Trump, Allies Abandon Giuliani As He Struggles With Legal Fees (businessinsider.com)

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

Reuters: Dominion sues Newsmax, One America over U.S. election fraud claims

[JerryBaumchen 1,446]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

Reuters: Dominion sues Newsmax, One America over U.S. election fraud claims

Hi Robert,

 

 

 

 

Jerry Baumchen

[headoverheels 333]

In case you are interested in reading legal complaint/indictment papers, here is a site with the cases related to January 6th.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Sorting by date shows arrests as recent as today.

 

[ryoder 1,590]

Judge Rules Dominion Lawsuit Against Giuliani, Kraken Lawyer And MyPillow Guy Can Proceed

U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, ruled against the bid by lawyers for the trio, who had argued that the lawsuits were legally deficient.

That just makes it even better!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, headoverheels said:

In case you are interested in reading legal complaint/indictment papers, here is a site with the cases related to January 6th.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Sorting by date shows arrests as recent as today.

 

They still are trying to identify some suspects.

I think the arrests will continue for some time.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence