Here's how to stop Trump's election fraud lawyers dead in their tracks: Rule 11
December 13, 2020
By Tom Boggioni
In an opinion piece for Politico, an exasperated Kimberly Wehl a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law said it is time for judges who are being forced to rule on accusations of voter fraud by Donald Trumps lawyers to lay down the law and penalize them for wasting the courts time.
Following the ultimate smackdown on Friday by the Supreme Court, which refused to even consider a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Wehl said now is the time for judges to put a halt to the Republican election fraud charade.
In federal court (where 11 of the cases have been brought) its called Rule 11. And courts have used it many times to discourage the very kinds of legally insufficient and bad faith claims that have been advanced by Rudy Giuliani and his so-called elite strike force of attorneys, she wrote before pointing out that the presidents lawsuits have been dismissed with astonishing speed which is an indication of how specious they are.
Rule 11 sanctions are normally triggered when the offended party files a motion. The alleged wrongdoer gets 21 days to fix the problem, else the court gets involved. Courts can also prompt sanctions on their ownor sua sponte. If its a party that brings up sanctions, courts can order monetary fines to be paid to the court under Rule 11 (not to the other party, for fear of creating incentives to seek sanctions as a moneymaking enterprise), she explained before adding, Moreover, courts can sanction parties and lawyers in ways that do not involve money. At the federal level, nonmonetary sanctions have included public reprimands, orders to undergo legal education, referrals to the bar for disciplinary proceedings, warnings, suspension or even disbarment, forced admission of the facts alleged by the other side, and bans on a party or attorney (e.g., Powell or Giuliani) from bringing similar suits without advance permission from the court.
the case is presented. It can't be just "implemented" all at once.
but inexplicably, none of the judges have dropped that hammer (and state courts have their own versions of it). These are some of the dumbest, most frivolous lawsuits that have ever been filed anywhere. Were the judges concerned about slowing down the process? Did they think dismissal by itself would be sufficient deterrent? I don't get it.
by drumpf. They were afraid to go there!
About this rule 11? Can a request be made in court for the judge to use this rule?
The problem is that this takes time - the rule allows the alleged violator 21 days to retract or remove the questioned material, but these election cases have almost all been handled with expedited scheduling.
Normal conditions would be handled differently i assume. Maybe with attached monetary factors? (fines)
It really boggles my mind.
One argument indicates that the losing candidate has a right to challenge election results in the courts, but obviously that's if there is clear evidence of fraud.
But the clown show which to any objective, rational observer shows is a money scam, yet it is allowed to continue giving air of legitimacy. So truly, I don't understand why it hasn't been put into effect.
Certainly if not now, when?
as well as the costs and lawyer fees shelled out by the states?
I've seen many civil cases in non-federal courts in which plaintiffs who lose are required to pay the defendants their expenses for defending themselves in court. In some cases, the judges award damages as well. But I'm unfamiliar with the way things are done in federal courts.
How much, incidentally, is it costing these states to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits? I'd love to see a tally.
I haven't come across any accounting for court expenses. Of course, I've been largely avoiding tv news and only skimming through my nyt and wapo feeds cuz I just want to read how all of this madness has finally come to a close.
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has allowed a California lawyer-dentist to be fined $20,000 in a case that questioned President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship.
The justices, in a brief order Monday, declined to stay a federal judge's motion last October against Orly Taitz, an outspoken figure in the "birther" movement.
place safe harbor into question for some of the states that think they attained it.
Things happen for a reason. Everyone knew the basis for the lawsuits without evidence or standing was terrible legally.
My guess is the purpose was to try to scuttle the Electoral College vote by chiseling Biden below 270 EVs so it places it in the hands of Congress or the conservative Supreme Court.
Most seem to agree that Wisconsin did not attain safe harbor. There's 10 EVs less in Biden's column for Congress.
There were 10 faithless electors in 2016 - 7 legal. Trump is probably pulling out all the stops to exceed 2016 in faithless electors with blackmail, bribes & trickery. I was kind of hoping for an Al Capone jury switch to help mess him up on this. I'd guess he'll get 11 or more this time. If they can flip Lindsey Graham ...
So they'll raise the notion that there were 39 or so outstanding lawsuits that cause the other states to fail to meet safe harbor - to argue Biden did not attain 270 uncontestable EVs
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
If they're successful there (with a Conservative majority on the Supreme court if that factors in) ...
The GA Senate elections might be more important than we presently think.
Is the above going to happen? I have no idea.
I am not at peace with what Trump and the GOP are doing. I'm worried. Things happen for a reason and I do not think the only reason is raising money.
I think it is naïve to think this is all over or that Biden's election is safe yet.
...into a revenue stream, but I think the bad actors should have to pay whatever expenses were incurred in having to defend against the specious actions.