Beatdown in Motown--judge sanctions 2020 Elections fraud lawyers in blistering ruling (Page 2/3)
rinselberg AUG 27, 06:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

What was her background?

Why don't you investigate and find out for yourself?

Perhaps you know a 12 year old that understands the 'SEARCH' function...


Why do I need to be invested in discovering that information on my own, when you are apparently not invested in sharing that information (if you already have it) with the forum?

I don't intend to invest more time in this than it's worth to me, but there's something about your attitude on this . . . "supercilious" comes to my mind.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-27-2021).]

olejoedad AUG 27, 06:59 PM
To answer your first question.....I don't work for you.

As to your second statement......I really don't care.
randye AUG 27, 10:31 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


I am not conceding that the Obama administration should be charged with an Error for nominating Judge Linda Parker to the federal bench.





Why do you persist with your bizarre and improper capitalizing of random words in sentences?

You tried to blow it off before by claiming that it was because you capitalized other words in that sentence....which was even more bizarre because the other words were also improperly capitalized in that sentence.

In fact, almost every post you make has weirdly and improperly capitalized words in sentences along with odd ball punctuation and whackadoodle parenthetical statements and garbled, unnecessary, run-on, sentences.

By the way, you are "not conceding" that a Leftist amateur is improperly appointed by Obama as federal judge just the same as you are "not conceding" that the "Bellingcat" trash propaganda that you posted in another thread was written by anonymous Leftist amateurs and just the same as you are "not conceding" that the New York Slimes trash propaganda video on Jan 6 that you were endlessly hooting about was made by Leftist amateurs.

Your habit of "not conceding" is nothing unusual but it does remind me:




quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

. . . "supercilious" comes to my mind.




"Willfully ignorant leftist puke" comes to my mind.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-27-2021).]

sourmash AUG 27, 10:48 PM
If we wanted to be accurate, the thread title would be. Double minority Obama appointee amateur throws hopeful haymaker.
randye AUG 28, 12:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

If we wanted to be accurate, the thread title would be. Double minority Obama appointee amateur throws hopeful haymaker.




Then the "by line" would have to be:

"Simple minded Leftists believe it to be conclusive "proof" that the election wasn't stolen"

They simply don't possess the mental capacity to realize that these lawyers being scolded and possibly sanctioned has NOTHING to do with any actual trial on the facts, but simply because of what was, or wasn't, alleged in the original complaint.

I'll have to check the records to see if the plaintiffs have, or have been allowed to, amend their original complaint(s) but on the face of it this simply appears like these judges are trying very hard to dismiss these cases before they even get to discovery phase not to mention to trial.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-28-2021).]

rinselberg AUG 28, 06:07 PM
Mmm mmm mmm luv me some Copy'n'Paste

quote
The lawyers who battled for President Donald Trump in the days after the 2020 election are now fighting to salvage their professional careers—a fight they pretty much invited by openly flouting many of the core ethical precepts to which licensed attorneys are bound. Last November, we warned these lawyers that this could happen. Today, they face punishing financial and professional consequences, including the potential loss of their license to practice law. This is exactly what should happen.

On Wednesday, in a 110-page opinion that will likely serve as required reading in future law-school ethics classes, U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker delivered her comprehensive sanctions ruling against Sidney Powell and her merry band of “Kraken” lawyers.

The ruling addressed in clear terms the difference between “cable-news lawyering” and the actual practice of law. “While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced,” Parker wrote, “such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law.” Her ruling outlined how Powell’s team had relied upon affidavits riddled with baseless speculation and accusations contradicted by existing public evidence to advance their claims seeking extraordinary relief that would have effectively nullified the votes of millions of Americans in Michigan. As Parker wrote, “this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so. . . .”


The first paragraphs of a fairly brief op-ed.

"The Sanctioning of Trump’s Lawyers Is Exactly What Is Supposed to Happen"

quote
Those who represented the president in his frivolous election lawsuits should have known better.


Bradley P. Moss and Joanne Molinaro for The Atlantic; August 28, 2021.
https://www.theatlantic.com...wyers-kraken/619915/


quote
Bradley P. Moss is a partner at the Washington, D.C., law office of Mark S. Zaid, P.C. He is also the deputy executive director of the James Madison Project. Joanne Molinaro is a partner and trial lawyer in Chicago.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2021).]

randye AUG 28, 07:58 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Mmm mmm mmm luv me some Copy'n'Paste

....a fairly brief op-ed.




YUP,..... Mmm mmm mmm, you luv the taste of hot creamy bullshit

"op-ed"

As in: OPINION-EDITORIAL

A NARRATIVE

IMAGINED

CONJECTURE

SPECULATION

SUPPOSITION

PRESUMPTION

ASSUMPTION

POSTULATIONS

HYPOTHETICALS



YOU LIVE ENTIRELY IN A FANTASY WORLD OF OPINIONS AND UNRESTRAINED EMOTIONS


If you were ever forced to post nothing but objective, verified, factual information you would be RENDERED INSTANTLY MUTE.



By the way, former president Trump is / was NOT the client of the attorneys that your 2 chucklehead Leftist opinionistas keep wrongly insisting he is.

Former president Trump was never named as a plaintiff in any of the complaints filed, nor was he an affiant to any them.

IF your 3 Leftist chucklehead opinionistas had actually READ any of the complaints they would know that.....

....or else they DO know that and in typical PROPAGANDA fashion they are LYING, which given the bulk of their "article" and the fact that they are both attorneys, seems far more likely.

Your 2 propagandists would have a tiny shred of credibility IF they hadn't been puking out anti-Trump opinion screeds since just a few months after he was elected.....but they have.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-28-2021).]

rinselberg AUG 29, 12:50 PM

"Yeah, it feels like that."

Although this photograph of U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker is from 2020, this is how she probably "glowed" after issuing a 110-page ruling that slapped some serious sanctions on Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and 7 other lawyers who carried the torch for Trump World's election fraud claims after the 2020 presidential election.

The ruling is being widely hailed as "one for the ages of jurisprudence."

------------------
Viva la revolución del 15 de agosto

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-29-2021).]

sourmash AUG 29, 01:27 PM
Are we sure she's not just another Rachel Dolezal?
randye AUG 29, 08:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

....slapped some serious sanctions....


The ruling is being widely hailed as "one for the ages of jurisprudence."





No it isn't.


The simple fact is you wouldn't know a "ruling for the ages of jurisprudence" or "serious sanctions" if your blind, ignorant life depended on it.

Because of your blind ignorance:

1.) You don't understand that an Obama activist judge in Michigan is asking a TEXAS Bar Association to review Sidney Powell for possible discipline.

2.) You don't understand that the Obama activist judge ordering Sidney Powell and other attorneys to "take additional training" is a real "nothing burger" in terms of any imagined "punishment" because attorneys are required to have periodic CLE anyway and the judge's directed "training" will doubtless count toward that annual requirement. It will also very probably consist of an online, self directed, course done at Ms. Powell and the other counselors leisure..

3.) You don't understand that the "fines" imposed by the Obama activist judge aren't an "earth shattering" or "historic" ruling either but you think they are because you don't understand that many states already require that a losing party must pay the legal expenses of the prevailing defendant or plaintiff.

Since this case was brought in Federal District Court, the FRCP, (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), RULE 54 also mandates the payment of legal fees to the prevailing party.

4.) You don't understand that your so-called "Beatdown" is actually NOTHING out of the ordinary except for a lot of worthless, immaterial, sermonizing by an Obama activist judge.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-29-2021).]