Jump to content

Peering into Sydney Powell's Kraken and finding trouble


Recommended Posts

‘Kraken’ Sanctions Hearing: Lin Wood Blames Sidney Powell In Attempt To Evade Punishment As Judge Expresses Skepticism

 

A federal judge signaled Monday that far-right attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and other pro-Trump lawyers could be sanctioned for bringing a Michigan election fraud lawsuit and denounced their evidence of election fraud as “fantastical,” as Wood and another attorney attempted to distance themselves from the case during the contentious hearing.

 

Powell and her co-counsel unsuccessfully sued Michigan election officials after the election, attempting to overturn the presidential election and alleging widespread fraud, and Michigan officials have asked for the pro-Trump lawyers to be sanctioned over the “frivolous” and error-ridden lawsuit, which they argue was brought in bad faith.

During a hearing Monday over the sanctions request, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker repeatedly expressed skepticism of the pro-Trump attorneys’ evidence of election fraud in the case, criticizing one affidavit as being based on “levels of hearsay” and another as so “speculative” as to be “fantastical.”

Parker suggested she believed the right-wing attorneys filed their affidavits without doing the “due diligence” to determine whether they were actually true, saying she had “heard nothing” to suggest the lawyers had done their “minimal duty that any attorney has in presenting a sworn affidavit.”

Wood and attorney Emily Newman emphasized to the court they did not play a role in the lawsuit, with Newman’s attorney saying she had only spent five hours of work on the case and Wood telling the judge: “I didn’t do anything with respect to this lawsuit.”

Wood claimed he did not know his name was being put on the lawsuit and said he had only told Powell more broadly “if she needed my help I would help her from a trial lawyer standpoint” in any of her post-election lawsuits, but did not know about the Michigan lawsuit until after it was filed.

Powell disputed Wood’s account, saying she “did specifically ask Mr. Wood for his permission,” though she acknowledged there may have been a “misunderstanding,” and city of Detroit attorney David Fink called Wood’s assertions “blatantly false” and pointed out Wood had bragged about his involvement on social media.

CRUCIAL QUOTE

“I don't think I've ever seen an affidavit that makes so many leaps,” Parker said about one affidavit presented as evidence of election fraud. “This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is: How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?”

More at the link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/07/12/kraken-sanctions-hearing-lin-wood-blames-sidney-powell-in-attempt-to-evade-punishment-as-judge-expresses-skepticism/?sh=212effb6194a

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshitters tend to have a very difficult time in court, for some reason. Even when they don't have to swear an oath, that candor toward the tribunal thing jumps up and bites them in the ass. It isn't just unfair. It is 

SO Unfair. 

Don't end up in court, bullshitters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraken Sanctions Hearing Devolves Into Screaming Sh*tshow Debacle 

Who could have predicted this shocking turn of events?

U.S. District Judge Linda Parker is having a rough day, and so is her court reporter. During a six-hour slugfest sanctions hearing in the Michigan “Kraken” case, the team worked to corral a dozen screaming, interrupting, crying, filibustering lawyers. It was worse than herding cats — at least cats are cute.

The City of Detroit and state of Michigan requested sanctions, including fines and referral for disbarment for lawyers Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, Lin Wood, Stefanie Lambert Juntilla, Julia Haller, and a handful of their squidlet associates. The gravamen of the claim was that the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to conduct the most basic due diligence to vet the “evidence” in support of their fantastical claims of a stolen election.

“How could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?” Judge Parker asked, referring to one particularly ridiculous document alleging that the witness saw someone deliver a batch of ballots in a clear plastic bag and thus suspected foul play.

“Doesn’t counsel also have an obligation to evaluate this and say ‘What exactly is this going to prove?'” the court asked.

Kraken lawyer Julia Haller, who appeared at multiple points to be crying, stammered that it would be unethical for them to alter an affidavit. Which is true, but does nothing to counter the argument that the attorneys who presented it as factually accurate failed in their obligation to figure out if the conduct alleged was illegal. Much less to determine if it actually happened.

Haller spent most of the day keening for an evidentiary hearing to test the validity of affidavits that were false on their face and were rejected by other courts, seemingly unaware that the issue at hand is not the truth or falsity of the affiants’ claims, but the attorneys’ failure to ensure that they weren’t shoveling a pile of incendiary bullshit onto the federal docket.

For his part, Lin Wood insisted that the court has no jurisdiction over him because, although he agreed to allow his name to appear on the original complaint, he was just the “litigation counsel,” and the case was dismissed before a trial. Which is of a piece with the posture of a legal team who argued that electronic signatures don’t count as appearing in the case.

Wood denied that he’d been served, despite the protests from David Fink, counsel for the City of Detroit, that he had both proof of service and multiple social media posts by Wood referring to the case and his participation in it. Wood, who repeatedly wandered off and turned his back on the court, finished strong by literally shouting at the judge that he had a due process right to defend himself against Fink’s accusation that the allegations in the case contributed to the January 6 armed insurrection.

Powell, who sat stone faced and furious throughout most of the hearing, took the position that spamming the docket with bogus affidavits was evidence in and of itself of due diligence. It wasn’t her job to determine whether her expert witness was who he said he was — he wasn’t — since the veracity of his affidavit should be subject to “the crucible of an evidentiary hearing.”

Attorney Donald Campbell mounted a spirited defense of Powell, Woods, Kleinhendler, and Lambert Juntilla, although client control proved a challenge, particularly with respect to Woods and Kleinhendler. But at times Campbell appeared to antagonize the court himself.

“I am not a potted plant!” he shouted during a particularly contentious exchange in which the judge cautioned him not to question “my procedures.”

“I am concerned by the disrespect shown to the court,” interjected David Fink. And every other lawyer tuning it at home and on Twitter.

Lambert Juntilla has also wowed the profession, submitting a filing last week arguing that it was well established that attorneys have a free speech right to say any insane crap as they zealously advocate for their clients.

[Plaintiffs’ attorneys] speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances is a First Amendment right protected by a line of US Supreme Court cases too numerous to mention and any attempt to string cite them here would be insulting to all involved.

In fact, Judge Parker would not be “insulted.” Turns out, she’d like some evidence to support that claim, please and thank you.

But Howard Kleinhendler won the Crazy Lawyer contest amid a crowded field of contenders. From telling the court that it had no authority over him to blaming his own crappy briefs on a botched conversion from Word to PDF, he seemed to be on a mission to turn a parking ticket into a capital sentence. Repeatedly speaking over both opposing counsel and even the judge herself, he argued that U.S. v. Throckmorton’s holding that “fraud vitiates everything” entitled plaintiffs to skip the statutory procedures for election challenges and demand that courts overturn the results.

He doggedly insisted that the alternate slate of electors, i.e. the cosplay weirdos who swore themselves in on the steps of the legislature, justified continuing the case long after the election was certified and the results sent to the national archivist. And he gave no quarter on the bogus affidavits and defective witnesses, alleging that affidavits docketed in other cases were presumptively true, even when immediately proved to be otherwise.

In short, it was batshit. And while the parties were granted a two-week reprieve to file briefs in support of their positions and for the Michigan defendants to prove that they actually served notice of the Rule 11 motions, it sure as hell looks like someone is going to be in deep trouble here.

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sanctions-hearing-devolves-into-screaming-shtshow-debacle/

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, would have been great to see the crybabies get a little lock-up time for contempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Damn, would have been great to see the crybabies get a little lock-up time for contempt.

Maybe TFG will find a way to show up for support, and get a weekend in jail. "I'm sorry Mr. President, no cash bail, you have a reputation as a deadbeat."

Link to post
Share on other sites

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

It reads like a goddamn Onion article.

He actually SAID "I AM NOT A POTTED PLANT"

Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

It reads like a goddamn Onion article.

He actually SAID "I AM NOT A POTTED PLANT"

Jesus.

The Onion has a hard time keeping up, these days.

I agree that a night in the jug for contempt is RICHLY deserved by these unabashed bullshitters

Hmmm, just had a thought... if they are "unabashed" then maybe the remedy is to bash them?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hobie1616 said:

Peering into Sydney Powell's Kraken and finding trouble

I think I'd go blind if I peered into Sydney's Kraken.

i totally read it as 'peeing'.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Kraken, Kraken and Kraken liable to get strung up for, legally speaking? Anything a book contract and a few appearances on Fox News and at insurrection trade shows can't remedy?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

pathetic..

huge middle finger to all these willfully misguided, right-wing shitcunts, everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

What is Kraken, Kraken and Kraken liable to get strung up for, legally speaking? Anything a book contract and a few appearances on Fox News and at insurrection trade shows can't remedy?

doubt it, they're crafty like roaches ('the law' probably gives them a tail wind).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

What is Kraken, Kraken and Kraken liable to get strung up for, legally speaking? Anything a book contract and a few appearances on Fox News and at insurrection trade shows can't remedy?

I doubt Tucker can get them rebarred, or un-disbarred, however you want to phrase it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I doubt Tucker can get them rebarred, or un-disbarred, however you want to phrase it.

The Tucker Defense is no sane person would take the shit he signs his name to seriously. Works for journalists much better than it does for lawyers, I reckon. The Kraken may wind up as cat food.    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

The Tucker Defense is no sane person would take the shit he signs his name to seriously. Works for journalists much better than it does for lawyers, I reckon. The Kraken may wind up as cat food.    

Tucker isn’t a journalist he is an entertainer. He has no duty to be truthful, he just needs an audience with a hunger for bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s ‘Team Kraken’ Lands in Hot Water

L. Lin Wood played a starring role in the failed legal effort to alter the results of the 2020 election on behalf of former President Donald Trump. But Mr. Wood, a lawyer, now wants everyone to know that he had no real involvement in the suit to decertify the vote in Michigan, despite his name appearing on it.

“I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint,” he said on Monday, “but I had generally indicated to Sidney Powell that if she needed a quote-unquote trial lawyer, I would certainly be willing or available to help her.” Ms. Powell, you may recall, is the legal eagle who vowed to “release the Kraken” on supposed 2020 election fraudsters, thus earning the pro-Trump legal crusade its mythic nickname.

Mr. Wood was just trying to support his Kraken co-counsel.

Mr. Wood’s, um, clarifications were made to a federal judge during a hearing on whether he, Ms. Powell and several other lawyers should be sanctioned over the Michigan case. The city of Detroit, among other entities, has accused the pro-Trump legal team of abusing the court system by pursuing a frivolous, error-riddled case. The city wants the offending lawyers punished financially and referred for possible disbarment.

Monday’s virtual proceedings did not bode well for Team Kraken. U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker expressed skepticism bordering on dismay about some of the evidence and experts from the original case. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps,” she marveled at one point. “How could any of you as officers of the court present this affidavit?”

Generally speaking, it’s not a good sign when a judge is characterizing one’s evidence in terms such as “fantastical,” “speculative,” “bad faith,” “obviously questionable” and “layers of hearsay.” Judge Parker brushed back Ms. Powell’s assertion that the complaint’s 960 pages of affidavits proved “due diligence,” countering, “Volume, certainly for this court, doesn’t equate with legitimacy or veracity.”

The hearing ground on for six hours, with so much back talk and smack talk that the court reporter had to ask the participants to tone things down so that she could do her job. At day’s end, all parties were given two weeks to submit additional arguments.

Mr. Wood was not the only defendant eager to downplay his role. The lawyer for Emily Newman, another member of the Michigan Kraken team, said his client spent a mere five hours on the case and that her role was “de minimis.” More generally, the defendants maintain that the entire hearing is outrageous and baseless and — surprise! — that they are being unjustly persecuted. “I have practiced law for 43 years and have never witnessed a proceeding like this,” Ms. Powell said.

But here’s where the political and legal paths diverge for those perpetuating Mr. Trump’s election lies. The legal world has ethical, professional standards by which members are expected to abide. When they violate said standards, they can’t simply whine or bluster their way out of trouble with partisan demagogy. They need to justify their actions to judges and professional groups who have a clear grasp of the issues — and who deal with slick talkers for a living.

This is the situation in which Team Kraken and some other Trump legal enablers find themselves. Michigan is just one of several states where suits are underway against the lawyers who pursued baseless election-fraud complaints. Last month, a New York appellate court suspended the law license of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive apparatchiks, for making “demonstrably false and misleading statements” about the 2020 election. The Texas bar is looking into whether the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, committed professional misconduct in challenging the election results. The state bar of Georgia, where Mr. Wood’s practice is based, is investigating his behavior.

No doubt, the legal system hosts an abundance of carnival barkers and political hacks. Just this week, Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign legal adviser, announced her departure from the Republican Party, accusing its leaders of failing to stand up for Mr. Trump and for “true conservatives.” She is particularly miffed at the Republican National Committee’s chief legal counsel, Justin Riemer, for having reportedly spoken ill of her push to invalidate the 2020 results. “What Rudy and Jenna are doing is a joke and they are getting laughed out of court,” Mr. Riemer wrote in a November email, according to a new book by Michael Wolff. “They are misleading millions of people who have wishful thinking that the president is going to somehow win this thing.”

Ms. Ellis has demanded the resignation of top party officials, including Ronna McDaniel, the R.N.C.’s chairwoman, and says she will not return to the fold until the party “comes back home to conservatives.”

Such theatrics may thrill MAGA fans — and even more so the former president. But they are unlikely to sway jurists or other arbiters tasked with reviewing the behavior of officers of the court.

Mr. Trump’s alternative facts hold less sway over some realms than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Lawyers sanctioned over 'fantastical' suit alleging 2020 U.S. election was stolen

 A U.S. judge on Wednesday sanctioned two lawyers who brought a lawsuit alleging the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump and his supporters, calling their case "one enormous conspiracy theory." 

"This lawsuit was filed with a woeful lack of investigation," U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter said in a lengthy written decision which came four months after he dismissed the case. 

Neureiter ordered the two lawyers, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker, to pay the legal fees incurred by people and entities they sued, including Facebook Inc and voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems Inc. 

The amount of money the two will need to pay has not yet been determined by Neureiter, who has asked Dominion and Facebook to provide documentation about how much they spent.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawyers-sanctioned-over-fantastical-suit-alleging-2020-us-election-was-stolen/ar-AAMWeKK?li=BBnb7Kz 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Lawyers sanctioned over 'fantastical' suit alleging 2020 U.S. election was stolen

 A U.S. judge on Wednesday sanctioned two lawyers who brought a lawsuit alleging the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump and his supporters, calling their case "one enormous conspiracy theory." 

"This lawsuit was filed with a woeful lack of investigation," U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter said in a lengthy written decision which came four months after he dismissed the case. 

Interesting that Judge Parker and Judge Neureiter both chose the word "fantastical" to describe the different cases.

(Sorry as usual that I accidentally misquoted it as "fantastic" above.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Lawyers sanctioned over 'fantastical' suit alleging 2020 U.S. election was stolen

The amount of money the two will need to pay has not yet been determined by Neureiter, who has asked Dominion and Facebook to provide documentation about how much they spent.

I hope Dominion and Facebook have some hard hittin' green eyeshade guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hobie1616 said:

I hope Dominion and Facebook have some hard hittin' green eyeshade guys.

You question the possibility that Facebook has hard-nosed accountants?  Yeah, probably :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

You question the possibility that Facebook has hard-nosed accountants?  Yeah, probably :rolleyes:

As nutty as Mark Zuckerberg is, COO Sheryl Sandberg is all business and has no love for the Trumpers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Interesting that Judge Parker and Judge Neureiter both chose the word "fantastical" to describe the different cases.

(Sorry as usual that I accidentally misquoted it as "fantastic" above.)

I guess nutso is not good form among jurists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hobie1616 said:

I hope Dominion and Facebook have some hard hittin' green eyeshade guys.

I have a feeling that those two lawyers are scrambling to protect their assets. Whatever numbers they are hit with it won't be anything close to the $500 their wives are hoping for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

Interesting that Judge Parker and Judge Neureiter both chose the word "fantastical" to describe the different cases.

What’s interesting about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I have a feeling that those two lawyers are scrambling to protect their assets. Whatever numbers they are hit with it won't be anything close to the $500 their wives are hoping for.

2 year lookback

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

You question the possibility that Facebook has hard-nosed accountants?  Yeah, probably :rolleyes:

Somebody's gotta pay for Marky's flag waving surf excursions.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

I would love to see a great white chase him while he is riding that.

In Hawaii it would be a tiger shark.  I had one go under my boat one time.  Very impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hobie1616 said:

In Hawaii it would be a tiger shark.  I had one go under my boat one time.  Very impressive.

Kauai is pretty docile when it comes to shark attacks. Still, I would like to see a shot of this following him back to shore.

WhitesharkCarcharodoncarchariasscavengin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning to bullshitters. The “I’m a bullshitter and nobody takes me seriously” defense will not get you free from Dominion’s defamation suit. I recommend changing your ways and telling the truth. 
 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/567468-judge-denies-trump-ally-sidney-powells-request-to-dismiss-dominion

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"The question ... is whether a reasonable juror could conclude that Powell’s statements expressed or implied a verifiably false fact about Dominion. This is not a close call,” Nichols wrote. He added that, “it is simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an election.”

Oh boy!!! This opens the door if some ambitious young law firm opted to sue a certain former president for lies made while campaigning!  One can only hope!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article posted by Encephalopathic Tom:

"Although Nichols' decision is bad news for these three defendants, all of them can still ultimately prevail by proving that what they said about Dominion was true. Giuliani, Powell, and Lindell have claimed over and over again that they have the requisite evidence. They failed to produce it in post-election litigation and in the many public appearances where they accused Dominion of helping Biden steal the election. But now that Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion in compensatory and punitive damages from them, they have a pretty strong personal and financial incentive to finally reveal the facts underlying their assertion that the company switched Trump votes to Biden votes in what Lindell described as the "biggest election fraud in world history."

Seriously?  So they have had no incentive up until now to reveal the facts?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need some kind of symposium, at $400 a head, over 3 days, to finally find out what REALLY went on.

And the Supreme Court will be unanimous in reinstating the president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, benwynn said:

From the article posted by Encephalopathic Tom:

"Although Nichols' decision is bad news for these three defendants, all of them can still ultimately prevail by proving that what they said about Dominion was true. Giuliani, Powell, and Lindell have claimed over and over again that they have the requisite evidence. They failed to produce it in post-election litigation and in the many public appearances where they accused Dominion of helping Biden steal the election. But now that Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion in compensatory and punitive damages from them, they have a pretty strong personal and financial incentive to finally reveal the facts underlying their assertion that the company switched Trump votes to Biden votes in what Lindell described as the "biggest election fraud in world history."

Seriously?  So they have had no incentive up until now to reveal the facts?

Now we are REALLY going to find out what happened. It’s like that new Benghazi evidence. It’s gonna be a humdinger.  For bullshitters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear..... everytime I scroll by this thread title - I read "Peeing into SP's Kracken".  It's a mental image that I can't shake no matter how much mind bleach I try to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2021 at 10:07 AM, benwynn said:

From the article posted by Encephalopathic Tom:

"Although Nichols' decision is bad news for these three defendants, all of them can still ultimately prevail by proving that what they said about Dominion was true. Giuliani, Powell, and Lindell have claimed over and over again that they have the requisite evidence. They failed to produce it in post-election litigation and in the many public appearances where they accused Dominion of helping Biden steal the election. But now that Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion in compensatory and punitive damages from them, they have a pretty strong personal and financial incentive to finally reveal the facts underlying their assertion that the company switched Trump votes to Biden votes in what Lindell described as the "biggest election fraud in world history."

Seriously?  So they have had no incentive up until now to reveal the facts?

The same author commented on the presentations of facts back when the incentive was winning the election cases.

 

Sidney Powell's 'Kraken' Has Formidable Tentacles

But yes, seriously, the incentive is different now. I expect the results to be similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2021 at 4:53 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Dude you have got to expand your sources, unless you are the top advertiser at Reason and need more views there. 

ya gotta run what ya brung @Excoded Tom

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2021 at 7:46 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Now we are REALLY going to find out what happened. It’s like that new Benghazi evidence. It’s gonna be a humdinger.  For bullshitters. 

And Hunter's laptop. One day, soon, Rudy will finally release it. Any day now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2021 at 3:38 AM, Excoded Tom said:

The Deep Pocket of that trio is Mike, and by far. I wonder of The Kraken and Giulliani deliberately dragged him along as a sort of disposable shield. Like deliberately bringing the slowest guy in the tribe to go spear hunting for bear.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mark K said:
On 8/14/2021 at 6:38 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Guilinani... Powell... Lindell...

The Deep Pocket of that trio is Mike, and by far. I wonder of The Kraken and Giulliani deliberately dragged him along as a sort of disposable shield. Like deliberately bringing the slowest guy in the tribe to go spear hunting for bear.    

If you look around the table and you can't tell which one is the patsy: it's you

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeezuss - being a patsy for a guy who can't tell the difference between a good hotel and a landscaping business parking lot.

Now that would be humiliating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Jeezuss - being a patsy for a guy who can't tell the difference between a good hotel and a landscaping business parking lot.

Now that would be humiliating.

and here we are.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, she found trouble.

Historic and Profound Abuse': In Blistering Opinion, Judge Sanctions Kraken Lawyers Over Election Lawsuit

 

 

Source: National Law Journal

A federal judge has ordered the attorneys behind a Michigan lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results to face sanctions, including referrals for potential disbarment. 

U.S. District Judge Linda Parker issued the orders in response to motions for sanctions filed by lawyers for the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan over the quickly rejected election challenge. Her order affects lawyers Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Howard Kleinhendler, Greg Rohl, Julia Haller, Scott Hagerstrom and Emily Newman. These are the first sanctions issued against Powell and her team of attorneys. 

Parker ordered plaintiffs’ counsel in the case to pay attorneys’ fees for lawyers for the city of Detroit and Michigan state officials and to be referred to disciplinary authorities in Michigan as well as the attorneys’ home districts for investigation “and possible suspension or disbarment.” She also ordered the lawyers to take 12 hours of continuing legal education courses on pleading standards and election law. 

“This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” Parker wrote in opening her opinion. “It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.” 

The federal judge said that, while others may be able to “disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere,” attorneys cannot “exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same.”

Read more: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2021/08/25/historic-and-profound-abuse-in-blistering-opinion-judge-sanctions-kraken-lawyers-over-election-lawsuit/?kw=%27Historic%20and%20Profound%20Abuse%27:%20In%20Blistering%20Opinion%2C%20Judge%20Sanctions%20Kraken%20Lawyers%20Over%20Election%20Lawsuit&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_content=20210825&utm_term=nlj&slreturn=20210725182304

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news but I don't see any mention of prison time there.

Or firing squads for that matter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear.... not matter how many times I read the thread title - I still think it actually says:  

PEEING into sydney powells' crack.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I swear.... not matter how many times I read the thread title - I still think it actually says:  

PEEING into sydney powells' crack.  

Everyone has a goal!  You read what you want to read!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Don't worry, this makes her as good as dead.

She will just turn this into a fundraising opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bridhb said:

She will just turn this into a fundraising opportunity.

Read the decision. Judge didn’t like the Kraken raising money to “launch more suits” and recommended appropriate state bar regulators address the issue of donors paying Krakensanctions. Presumably by disbarring her. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Read the decision. Judge didn’t like the Kraken raising money to “launch more suits” and recommended appropriate state bar regulators address the issue of donors paying Krakensanctions. Presumably by disbarring her. 

Doubt they even care at this point. It will just turn into another fund raising / grift for these fuckers.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Doubt they even care at this point. It will just turn into another fund raising / grift for these fuckers.....

The Court is troubled that Powell is profiting from the filing of this and other frivolous election-challenge lawsuits. See https://defendingtherepublic.org (website of company run by Powell on which donations are solicited to support the “additional cases [being prepared] every day”). Other attorneys for Plaintiffs may be as well, given that their address (according to the filings here) is the same address listed on this website. What is concerning is that the sanctions imposed here will not deter counsel from pursuing future baseless lawsuits because those sanctions will be paid with donor funds rather than counsel’s. In this Court’s view, this should be considered by any disciplinary authority reviewing counsel’s behavior

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The Court is troubled that Powell is profiting from the filing of this and other frivolous election-challenge lawsuits. See https://defendingtherepublic.org (website of company run by Powell on which donations are solicited to support the “additional cases [being prepared] every day”). Other attorneys for Plaintiffs may be as well, given that their address (according to the filings here) is the same address listed on this website. What is concerning is that the sanctions imposed here will not deter counsel from pursuing future baseless lawsuits because those sanctions will be paid with donor funds rather than counsel’s. In this Court’s view, this should be considered by any disciplinary authority reviewing counsel’s behavior

Like that has stopped these assholes in the past?

So what if they lose their law license. They can still continue to grift fundraise from the elk. Hell, the marks may even dig a bit deeper knowing the "deep state" has disbarred them.

At this point, they don't care....

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Like that has stopped these assholes in the past?

So what if they lose their law license. They can still continue to grift fundraise from the elk. Hell, the marks may even dig a bit deeper knowing the "deep state" has disbarred them.

At this point, they don't care....

If she can’t file bullshit lawsuits to own the libs she won’t be as attractive for bubbacoin donations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Cracking up at the kraken right now.

 

 

She was right to end the interview, but why did she agree to do it? Does she really need to fundraiser that badly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

She was right to end the interview, but why did she agree to do it? Does she really need to fundraiser that badly?

She was probably using it as practice for the cross, she's probably pissed she only lasted two thought provoking questions before she had to shut things down.

Back to the drawing board -gotta get the bullshit straight and sound more convincing, thats gonna take a lot of unbillable hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

She was right to end the interview, but why did she agree to do it? Does she really need to fundraiser that badly?

No, the Australian ABC does not pay for interviews.

Lookup the two parts of the 4corners program. awesome journalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

She was right to end the interview, but why did she agree to do it? Does she really need to fundraiser that badly?

She's got Koch-$pon$ored cheerleaders so obviously money won't be a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, random. said:

No, the Australian ABC does not pay for interviews.

Lookup the two parts of the 4corners program. awesome journalism.

That’s not what I meant. Every time one of these shitweasels gets on TV to spew their bullshit, gobs of like minded morons send their money to them.