Mike Lindell's Election Shenanigans, FrankSpeech and #MyPillow #FAILS - 6/28/61 Cancer / Ox

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Mikey: I'm gonna sue!
FBI: *laughs in subpoena*

[Luke]

Kimmel had "Lindell" on

[neonzx]

[Greatgrey]

Well I’ll be damned, he actually filed something. He wants his phone back.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 71.1.0.pdf

[MN-Skeptic]

Oh wow... Alan Dershowitz was one of the lawyers to sign it.

[pipistrelle]

Well I’ll be damned, he actually filed something. He wants his phone back.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 71.1.0.pdf

I'd get a new phone.

[Greatgrey]

Oh wow... Alan Dershowitz was one of the lawyers to sign it.

I’m wondering if Alan knows he signed it. Pllowguy plays kinda loose.

[June bug]

IANAL, so I don’t know the significance of this.

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

[northland10]

He argued when trying to get MyPillow dismissed from the Dominion or Smartmatic suit that MyPillow was not involved in his work, but now he says that his phone is provided by MyPillow for their work, the work of 4 other businesses he owns, and would appear, his personal use. There is no line between MyPillow and Lindell.

[humblescribe]

So, it bears repeating that IANAL.

The corporate veil and such protections that it provides the shareholders can be pierced (or at least should be able to be pierced) under certain conditions.

Lindell has made up countless lies and stories about the election, and he has purported to have evidence that supports his assertions. He attracts a frenzied throng that hangs on every word he says. Each time we see him bloviating publicly, there is always a promotional code to purchase his wares at a discount.

This marketing approach to peddle his products alongside his unsupported claims of election irregularities seems to me to blur the lines between Lindell as an individual and his corporation. To my way of thinking, Lindell and MyPillow, Inc. are one and the same.

At least I would advance that as part of my argument to be able to sue not only Lindell as an individual, but also his corporation.

[Gregg]

The discount code tie ins have attached the lies to the company just as securely as if they were lashed to the mast.

[bob]

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

The Dersh's not signing it means he isn't subject to possible Rule 11 sanctions.

"Of Counsel for Plaintiff" isn't a thing; I don't know who that is intended to impress beyond Lindell.

* * *

6th? Even the 5th is silly. He has not been charged with anything so it is hard to claim you were convicted without a trial by jury when you have not even been indicted yet.

4th would be easier to argue if a judge had not signed the warrant.

The 6th Amendment only gets a passing mention, BTW. There's a throwaway allegation that the FBI initially denied his request to call his lawyer (and "therefore" violated his right to counsel), but it isn't a full-blown cause of action, and will be ignored by everyone.

The 5th is a rather generic "DUE PROCESS!!1!" claim. The 4th Amendment claim alleges, among other things, the feebs lied to (or were omissive with) the magistrate.

* * *

P&E (with some actual reporting(!)): Lindell Motion to Intervene Argues Protective Order “Stale,” but not Alleged “Data”:

On the second day of his two-day “The Moment of Truth Summit,” August 21, 2022, MyPillow founder Mike Lindell told his audience that by pressing a button on his laptop, he uploaded a Motion to Intervene in a 15-year-old lawsuit in which former government subcontractor Dennis Montgomery and his former business partner, Warren Trepp, were then embroiled.

* * *

In the document, attorneys for Lindell argue that the Protective Order requested by the government and granted in 2007 by Judge Philip Pro over contractual work Montgomery, Trepp and the company they formed, eTreppid, performed for “intelligence agencies” is “stale” and should therefore be lifted so that Lindell can “defend himself” from “a defamation claim.”

* * *

The Motion was accompanied by a 194-page “Declaration” from Montgomery, from which Lindell’s attorney, Kurt Olsen, read between Lindell’s two August 21 soliloquies to the summit audience on the subject.

* * *

“Lindell possesses data (“Data”) obtained from party Dennis Montgomery (“Montgomery”), which Lindell seeks to use to defend himself against claims asserted in other litigation, and the Data may be covered by the Protective Order,” Lindell’s attorneys wrote on page 2.

* * *

On page 3 of the Motion, Lindell’s attorneys claim Lindell “acquired ownership rights to the Data” from Montgomery.

The information that Lindell in part relied upon, the Data, comprises internet transmissions sent during the 2020 election that were collected by technology Montgomery developed and previously licensed to the US government. Lindell Decl. ¶ 7; See Exhibit B at Decl. ¶ 40. Montgomery has gathered extensive data showing that voting machine manufacturers and their employees were hacked several times, and information related to illegal US government surveillance programs that Montgomery worked in. Montgomery Decl. ¶ 38. Lindell agreed to acquire ownership rights to the Data from Montgomery. Lindell Decl. ¶ 6; Montgomery Decl. ¶ 39. The Protective Order entered by this Court prohibits the use or disclosure of information related to Montgomery’s work for or relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies. See Doc. #253. Montgomery believes the Protective Order remains in place and precludes disclosure of the Data. Montgomery Decl. ¶ 41. Lindell seeks removal of this barrier to him using the Data, and testimony and evidence concerning Montgomery, to defend himself in the D.C. Litigation. Lindell Decl. ¶ 10.

It is unclear how Lindell acquired the “Data” when it is allegedly prohibited from release by a U.S. government protective order.

On his website, as of this writing Montgomery claims, “I could have sold the data and made millions of $, but didn’t. I could have sold secrets from every defense contractor in this country, but didn’t, I could have dumped this on the internet and fled to Russia, but didn’t…”

Lindell's motion and Montgomery's 7-page declaration (the remaining pages are exhibits to the declaration).

Rondeau, unsurprisingly, missed the crux of the claim; from the motion:

[Dominion]'s complaint in that action alleges Lindell defamed them by making various statements about electronic election equipment used in the 2020 presidential election being hacked to manipulate the results of the election. . . . In making these statements, Lindell relied in part upon information that originated with Montgomery. . . . Accordingly, Lindell seeks to use testimony and evidence concerning Montgomery’s background and his work for U.S. intelligence agencies, and the information from Montgomery itself, to defend the reasonability and veracity of his allegedly defamatory statements in the D.C. Litigation.

Rondeau notes of course Montgomery in 2006 could not have known anything about the 2020 election. And Rondeau notes that Montgomery should not have been discussing the data under seal. Did Lindell just set Montgomery up for contempt and sanctions?

But Lindell's ultimate claim, that he needs the data to prove that Montgomery was a bona fide cryptospook, and therefore his repeating Montgomery's lies was reasonable, misses the mark and puts the cart before the horse. The time for Lindell to do due-diligence research on Montgomery was before opening his yap and defaming everyone, not now. In other words, there's nothing in the old case to show that Lindell's reliance on Montgomery was reasonable.

The first named defendant in the case is eTrippid, which is dead. But the federal government also is a defendant; it likely will oppose Lindell's motion for a variety of reasons.

[Foggy]

Mike, trust me, I have "the data".

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, gimme the data, I'll pay you millions!

Umm, you have to pay for the data first.

Okay, here's $ millions $. Gimme the data.

Umm, there's just one little thing, a protective order in a case from long, long ago in another galaxy ... we have to get that lifted or its illegal to give you "the data".


Sniff, sniff, do I smell another Montgomery scam?

[Luke]

Thanks, Bob! That was a ton to look through, well done. Appreciate it bigly. Seems like the P&E brain trust is still reviewing the article carefully and performing independent research as you have, no comments yet.

Agree Foggy, but to be sure it's a grift we need to hear from Carl Gallups. How did Carl and Brandon "Big B" miss out on some of those LindellBux™?

[Luke]

Sweet, here are the Exhibits which include the warrant. Good that Lindell put it all on the line for Tina Peters.

0663.JPG (98.32 KiB) Viewed 662 times

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .6.0_1.pdf

[Kriselda Gray]

IANAL, so I don’t know the significance of this.

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

What is the distinction?

[raison de arizona]

IANAL, so I don’t know the significance of this.

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

What is the distinction?

The Dersh's not signing it means he isn't subject to possible Rule 11 sanctions.

"Of Counsel for Plaintiff" isn't a thing; I don't know who that is intended to impress beyond Lindell.

[keith]

Mike, trust me, I have "the data".

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, gimme the data, I'll pay you millions!

Umm, you have to pay for the data first.

Okay, here's $ millions $. Gimme the data.

Umm, there's just one little thing, a protective order in a case from long, long ago in another galaxy ... we have to get that lifted or its illegal to give you "the data".


Sniff, sniff, do I smell another Montgomery scam?

I am quite sure that is EXACTLY what happened.

[Kriselda Gray]

Sniff, sniff, do I smell another Montgomery scam?

Foggy,

You said to remind you about the idea of trying to get someone maybe like Rachael or
Someone else who can do a longer, in-depth segment on Montgomery, so I am...

[noblepa]

IANAL, so I don’t know the significance of this.

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

What is the distinction?

I'm not sure what "of counsel" means, but I did note that Dershowitz is listed as "to be admitted Pro Hac Vice". I take that to mean that he has requested PHV status but it has not yet been granted. That may be the real reason that his name was listed separately.

[June bug]

IANAL, so I don’t know the significance of this.

Unlike the other three, Dershowitz didn’t actually sign it. Also the other three are are listed as Counsel, whereas Dershowitz is listed as of Counsel.

What is the distinction?

I'm not sure what "of counsel" means, but I did note that Dershowitz is listed as "to be admitted Pro Hac Vice". I take that to mean that he has requested PHV status but it has not yet been granted. That may be the real reason that his name was listed separately.

Kurt Olson and Patrick McSweeney, both listed as Counsel, are also listed as “to be admitted Pro Hac Vice”.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I think "Of Counsel" is being used here to indicate that the Derpsh is not a partner in a law firm, but is claiming similar experience. See also, too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel

[northland10]

This is just a management docket entry but, for completeness:

(Text-Only): Notice re: Non-Admitted AttorneyWe have received documents listing Kurt Olsen, Patrick M. McSweeney, Alan Dershowitz as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at www.mnd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms. (MKB) (Entered: 09/21/2022)

[bob]

I think "Of Counsel" is being used here to indicate that the Derpsh is not a partner in a law firm, but is claiming similar experience. See also, too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel

Exactly: "Of counsel" essentially means a person with partner-level experience who is not a partner of a law firm.

None of which is relevant to who is an attorney of record in a court case: Either you are or aren't. The courts don't care if there's a learned shadowy whisperer, provided some attorney is duly admitted (or granted PHV), and is signing things (and therefore subject to Rule 11).

[MN-Skeptic]

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

Mike Lindell’s new attorney Alan Dershowitz says he is filing a motion to have a Special Master appointed to his case just like Trump had for the MAL search.

11:27 AM · Sep 22, 2022