General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday, Pennsylvania judge asked a lawyer for Trump point-blank whether he was alleging fraud.
Link to tweet
Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
Today in court, a Pennsylvania judge asked a lawyer for Trump point-blank whether he was alleging fraud.
(Full transcript here https://democracydocket.com/cases/montgomery-county-board-of-elections-vote-count/ )
Image
Oops
dawg day
(7,947 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,055 posts)This is (like most of Trump's cases - bluster aside) an effort to pick off ballots without being required to specifically prove fraud.
The law requires certain formalities for absentee ballots (absent secrecy sleeve, secrecy sleeve that identifies a voter by name or political affiliation, deficiencies in signature or date of the declaration).
So, although the judge asked about allegations of fraud, the case is about whether every cross and dot of the absentee ballot must be complied with (regardless of voter intent).
Orrex
(63,185 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)MyOwnPeace
(16,923 posts)Wish I could find the clip about "Presidential Erections!"
"Er, Miss Litella, that's "Presidential Elections......"
tulipsandroses
(5,122 posts)Talking out your ass on Fox or Social Media is one thing, swearing to it under oath is another.
lindysalsagal
(20,638 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)It's right there, and there's no reason they can't slam these idiots with sanctions under that rule, which says:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan 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.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
Why any of these judges are tolerating this bullshit is beyond me. Whack the lawyers right in the wallet!
Ms. Toad
(34,055 posts)The case is stupid, but it isn't about fraud, and it passes the laugh test.
It is about 562 absentee ballots that had defects. Trump is alleging that they can't be counted because the voters didn't follow the rules (not that anyone tried to cheat).
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,656 posts)Whether this particular case does depends on the details, but I'll bet at least some of the 10 cases that have been filed (so far) would.
Ms. Toad
(34,055 posts)must be interpreted strictly. Go read the court documents.
While I think they are all loser cases (with the possible exception of the one being heard by the supreme court), being a loser case is different from being so lacking in legal or factual merit as to justify sanctions.
I have not yet seen any that fall in the latter category.
Cumulatively, you could make a strong argument that they are filed for improper purposes - but taken in isolation (as they are for Rule 11 sanctions) that is a much harder case to make.
Doodley
(9,076 posts)Claustrum
(4,845 posts)Oh right, it was all hot air the whole time.
Ms. Toad
(34,055 posts)And they are trying to stop the counting of 562 ballots because the voters didn't entirely comply with the requirements for filling out absentee ballots.
Republicans allege the elector is required to hand-write his or her address on the outer envelope of an absentee or mail-in ballot; the Democrats allege that they do not as long as the electors addres is otherwise identifiable from the envelope (so their eligibility to vote can be established).
AmericanCanuck
(1,102 posts)It is sad but has to be done.
RestoreAmerica2020
(3,435 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,055 posts)brettdale
(12,373 posts)Trumpy doesnt stand a chance.