Squidney Sidney Katherine Powell 🐙 - Born May 1, 1955 - Taurus / Year of the Goat / Sheep

[raison de arizona]

I followed this on Twitter.

I laughed so hard when Wood, towards the end of the hearing, told the court that "hmmm, I think I might need independent council after all". (It would take forever to find the tweet that mentioned this. Please forgive me for not spending more time searching for it. I did search, but I followed multiple twitter accts.)

[LM K]

I followed this on Twitter.

I laughed so hard when Wood, towards the end of the hearing, told the court that "hmmm, I think I might need independent council after all". (It would take forever to find the tweet that mentioned this. Please forgive me for not spending more time searching for it. I did search, but I followed multiple twitter accts.)

Covefe, you're the bestest! Thank you!!

[chancery]

Chancery was interested in this so perhaps he might give us specifics.

All I know about the hearing is from skimming Mike's tweets and listening with half an ear to his twitch stream last night. I don't know what the Rule 5 arguments are.

[raison de arizona]

Edit: Here's the whole thing.

► Show Spoiler

Now Lin claims he didn't record it, he just posted it from someone else. I don't know if that's true or not, but based on my reading of the rules it seems to say just broadcasting it is against the rules, without regard to whether he actually recorded it. IAALs?

[Slim Cognito]

I didn't steal that money from the bank robbery. I just buried it in my backyard for safekeeping afterwards.

[woodworker]

I didn't steal that money from the bank robbery. I just buried it in my backyard for safekeeping afterwards.

IMHO, closer to "I didn't steal that money from the bank robbery, I just found a corresponding amount in my pockets and, having no idea how it came to be there, decided the only prudent thing would be to spend it as quickly as possible, which, even if it turns out to be the stolen money is not a crime because, honest, I don't know how it got in the pockets of my unbelievably tight jeans.

[Jim]

IANAL with a couple small questions...

Will we be able to read the supplemental briefs?

Will Fink and the other plaintiffs get another 2 weeks to respond?

[Dr. Caligari]

IANAL with a couple small questions...

Will we be able to read the supplemental briefs?

Will Fink and the other plaintiffs get another 2 weeks to respond?

(a) Yes, anything filed in the case is public record.

(b) No, the judge was clear that both sides had to file within 2 weeks.

[Maybenaut]

IANAL with a couple small questions...

Will we be able to read the supplemental briefs?

Will Fink and the other plaintiffs get another 2 weeks to respond?

(a) Yes, anything filed in the case is public record.

(b) No, the judge was clear that both sides had to file within 2 weeks.

Right. She’s not looking for argument. She wants facts. I expect to see at least one turn in a short pleading with a ream of exhibits.

[Jim]

Right. She’s not looking for argument. She wants facts. I expect to see at least one turn in a short pleading with a ream of exhibits.

Facts? From that group of lying sacks of crap? Sounds to me like she's looking for a miracle.

[Suranis]

Oh she will get facts. There's 960 pages of daffydavids that are waiting to be attached, for a start.

[RVInit]

Oh she will get facts. There's 960 pages of daffydavids that are waiting to be attached, for a start.

960 pages of people basically saying I was walking my dog and I saw people doing something and since I don't know who they were, I don't have any insight into what they were doing, and it happened during the same month we were all voting, they must have been engaged in some kind of voter fraud.

I was gobsmacked to hear attorneys arguing that all you have to do is apparently include dozens of these ridiculous scenarios and somehow they all must add up to something because including dozens of them means you are putting them "in context". And when you have that many things, well, something must be up.

[Jim]

OK, now I'm really going to show how mixed up I am.

They had a hearing on the original voter fraud complaint in front of Judge Parker, didn't they?

Wouldn't the lawyer who argued the case in front of Judge Parker be expected to know what they are arguing?

I would think that would be the lawyer most in danger of sanctions. Which one was it or did multiple lawyers argue the case?

[Maybenaut]

OK, now I'm really going to show how mixed up I am.

They had a hearing on the original voter fraud complaint in front of Judge Parker, didn't they?

Wouldn't the lawyer who argued the case in front of Judge Parker be expected to know what they are arguing?

Well, that’s one of the bases for the sanctions motion. The lawyers — all the lawyers — are supposed to know what they’re filing. They can’t copy a bunch of stuff from previous lawsuits without really looking at it to determine that (a) there’s a good faith basis for believing that the factual allegations are true, and (b) there’s a good faith basis for believing that the facts as applied to the law entitle their clients to relief.

What’s never been clear to me is whether these previous lawsuits were other kraken lawsuits or lawsuits filed by someone else (Giuliani and Ellis, for example).

I would think that would be the lawyer most in danger of sanctions. Which one was it or did multiple lawyers argue the case?

Doesn’t matter. You sign it, you’re on the hook. In fact, your clients are on the hook.I don’t think any of these lawyers are going to escape liability by arguing they were only 1099 contractors, or whatever.

[northland10]

Exsqueeze me.. I'm confused. I received my legal training from watching birther attorneys and Klayman. Good faith, facts, law. I don't understand these terms.

[fierceredpanda]

I went back and watched the sanctions hearing again. (Don't ask.) I've come to the conclusion - and I do not say this lightly - that Donald Campbell has a specific problem with Judge Parker either on the basis of her race or her gender. As the proceedings went on, he became more and more condescending and disrespectful towards her in a manner that I do not believe I have ever seen an attorney (let alone one with a reasonably good rep like Campbell) treat any judge in such a fashion. A couple samples follow.

Responding to the judge's question about whether an affiant's statement was credible on its face:

The answer to that, judge, is called an [enunciating and speaking up] ev-i-den-tiary hearing.

Interrupting the judge as she moves on from questioning the attorneys about whether an affiant's being "perplex" was sufficient factual basis to draw a legal conclusion:

Seriously? The word "perplexed" is what you think is worth the time and effort of all the lawyers, your staff on this proceeding to talk about sanctions? [Emphasis added.]

I might add here that I am slightly militant about the rule that attorneys and parties are never to refer to the court in the second person, but always in the third person. I literally stop myself, apologize, and correct the record on the rare occasions I slip and do it accidentally. As an example, the introductory clause "as you are aware" is improper and a breach of etiquette. The proper clause would be either "as the court is aware" or "as Your Honor is aware." Parties making this mistake is excusable. Attorneys, particularly veteran attorneys, doing so is not. But even without that, the sarcasm and condescension of that latter remark was sufficient to force another attorney (Fink) to comment on the disrespect being shown to the judge. Mike Dunford touched on this on his Twitchcast on Monday, and I agree with his assessment that Campbell would be well advised to apologize. But Campbell's repeated displays of contempt for Judge Parker seemed personal to me. Maybe he's just one of those attorneys that thinks he's smarter than the judge and therefore in a position to talk down to the bench. Both TRL and FPH mentioned on last night's Zoom call that there seemed to be a nasty racial or gender edge to some of the mistreatment of the judge, and on review of the hearing, I've come around to that perspective as well.

[Luke]

Thanks hugely for that, Panda. Haven't watched the full hearing but it's on the weekend watch list. From the last half-hour which we saw live, it was outrageous how they kept talking over the judge and disrespecting her. Guess with Zoom there are delays that might have cross-talk, but the court reporter was having a terrible time and finally spoke up. These lawyers should have known better. They wanted a circus to use their "flood the zone" with bullshit but they weren't getting away with it. Hoping for sanctions and referrals to their state bars. Some contempt like for Lucian Wood would be cool too.

Since the election, the clowns have had the stage. It's taken forever, but now the legal gears are moving and Trumper folks will see how much lying, grifting and LARPing was going on. They can try to deny reality again, but still feeling that many more will fade out of political activity after the dust settles. They only got on board the "Trump Train" because a reality-TV bozo was the conductor; many studies have shown that "hidden" Trump vote was from generally non-active voters. Without the clown in chief on the ballot, and constant smackdowns of the Trumper idiots who basically stole millions of dollars from ignorant people, still expect a low "soft GOP" turnout in 2022. And Squidney, Lucian and all those folks who pumped this garbage for eight months and ginned these people up (like DL2XIT saying maybe he'll be returned to the White House) will have a super negative impact.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

The interwebs has info about the double discrimination black women experience. It was obvious though after the 19th Amendment passed, some states, southern states primarily, prohibited black women from voting. That is one of the many reasons the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed.

https://time.com/5876456/black-women-right-to-vote/

It's a Struggle They Will Wage Alone.' How Black Women Won the Right to Vote

JONES: It’s a landmark moment when the U.S. Constitution includes an amendment that prohibits government from using sex as a criteria for voting rights. Like with any constitutional amendment, there’s a great deal more required in order to give it teeth.

In the case of the 19th Amendment, even as it’s ratified in August of 1920, all Americans are aware that many African-American women will remain disenfranchised. The 19th Amendment did not eliminate the state laws that operated to keep Black Americans from the polls via poll taxes and literacy tests—nor did the 19th Amendment address violence or lynching. Some African-American women will vote with the 19th Amendment. Some are already voting in California, New York and Illinois where state governments have authorized women’s votes. But many Black women faced the beginning of a new movement for voting rights in the summer of 1920, and it’s a struggle they will wage alone because now the organizations that had led the movement for women’s suffrage are disbanding.

Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All. https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/marth ... 541618619/

[filly]

I went back and watched the sanctions hearing again. (Don't ask.) I've come to the conclusion - and I do not say this lightly - that Donald Campbell has a specific problem with Judge Parker either on the basis of her race or her gender. As the proceedings went on, he became more and more condescending and disrespectful towards her in a manner that I do not believe I have ever seen an attorney (let alone one with a reasonably good rep like Campbell) treat any judge in such a fashion. A couple samples follow.

Responding to the judge's question about whether an affiant's statement was credible on its face:

The answer to that, judge, is called an [enunciating and speaking up] ev-i-den-tiary hearing.

Interrupting the judge as she moves on from questioning the attorneys about whether an affiant's being "perplex" was sufficient factual basis to draw a legal conclusion:

Seriously? The word "perplexed" is what you think is worth the time and effort of all the lawyers, your staff on this proceeding to talk about sanctions? [Emphasis added.]

I might add here that I am slightly militant about the rule that attorneys and parties are never to refer to the court in the second person, but always in the third person. I literally stop myself, apologize, and correct the record on the rare occasions I slip and do it accidentally. As an example, the introductory clause "as you are aware" is improper and a breach of etiquette. The proper clause would be either "as the court is aware" or "as Your Honor is aware." Parties making this mistake is excusable. Attorneys, particularly veteran attorneys, doing so is not. But even without that, the sarcasm and condescension of that latter remark was sufficient to force another attorney (Fink) to comment on the disrespect being shown to the judge. Mike Dunford touched on this on his Twitchcast on Monday, and I agree with his assessment that Campbell would be well advised to apologize. But Campbell's repeated displays of contempt for Judge Parker seemed personal to me. Maybe he's just one of those attorneys that thinks he's smarter than the judge and therefore in a position to talk down to the bench. Both TRL and FPH mentioned on last night's Zoom call that there seemed to be a nasty racial or gender edge to some of the mistreatment of the judge, and on review of the hearing, I've come around to that perspective as well.

I watched/listened to most of it live, I think I made some comments upthread about talking over a federal judge. I totally agree with your perspective. Judge Parker knew exactly what she was doing. Lawyers like Campbell never do their clients any favors. He reminded me of some assholes I went to law school with.

[RVInit]

Even as a non-attorney I was surprised at the level of disrespect shown by Campbell to the judge.

And on the topic of black women's right to vote. Black women put their hearts and souls into women's suffrage and did not get the respect and support by their white counterparts, sadly. Maybe white women suffragists were afraid that if they embraced black women's rights that would make it a bridge too far for any men who might be inclined to give white women the right to vote. But yes, from everything I have seen black women get the double whammy - they so often get racism and misogyny directed at them.

[Gregg]

If someone talked to me like that in a proper professional setting, I'd pimp slap the lot of them. I'm just a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky. You'd think a Federal Judge would rank somewhere above me, protocol wise.

It's too bad that a pimp slap is something a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky is more like to deliver than a Judge.

[Maybenaut]

If someone talked to me like that in a proper professional setting, I'd pimp slap the lot of them. I'm just a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky. You'd think a Federal Judge would rank somewhere above me, protocol wise.

It's too bad that a pimp slap is something a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky is more like to deliver than a Judge.

You’re also a white dude, and that’s no hyperbole. I totally think that factors in.

[Gregg]

If someone talked to me like that in a proper professional setting, I'd pimp slap the lot of them. I'm just a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky. You'd think a Federal Judge would rank somewhere above me, protocol wise.

It's too bad that a pimp slap is something a one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky is more like to deliver than a Judge.

You’re also a white dude, and that’s no hyperbole. I totally think that factors in.

Funny you mention it.

About a year ago a guy at work was really bitching about "so called white privilege". He asked me what I thought I had just because I was white etc...

Gee, Todd, I dunno... a damn fine education without paying a dime of tuition, not getting stalked in a C-Store if I'm wearing a hoodie, the fact that when I go too fast and the cop comes to make me slow down I get a warning instead of getting shot...

Just things.

[Volkonski]

[Luke]

Y'all may remember I tangled with Grant Stern over #Revote2017, he took the position that the disgraced loser could be removed from office through a court order. It was crazy then and crazy now. Still cautious about what Grant reports.