U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker issued a "blistering" (NBC News) 110-page ruling on Wednesday, imposing penalties on Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other lawyers who tried to advance lawsuits involving claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Parker, a Detroit native, is part of the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court, and the beatdown likely went down in Room 204 of the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse on Lafayette Blvd, in Detroit, judging (get it?) by what I see online.
"profound abuse of the judicial process"
quote
Powell, Wood and others joined a lawsuit in November alleging widespread fraud in the presidential contest in Michigan, which President Joe Biden won. Parker dismissed the lawsuit a month later because she found that it was based largely on "speculation and conjecture," according to The Associated Press.
"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process," Parker wrote in her ruling Wednesday. "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."
"that's gotta hurt"
quote
Parker ordered the lawyers to pay Detroit's court costs and to undergo 12 hours of continuing legal education, including six hours on election law. She is also sending a copy of her decision to state attorney grievance commissions for investigation, possible suspension or disbarment of the lawyers.
"Federal judge sanctions Trump attorneys for spreading false election fraud claims" Pete Williams and Dartunorro Clark for NBC News; August 25, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...raud-claims-n1277664
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-27-2021).]
Obama appointee - motivated by party loyalty, not impartial.
Edit to add (notice that I'm not modifying the text of my original post)
Her appointment marks her first job as a judge of any kind.
That's a pretty good gig for someone who never sat on the bench, not even traffic court experience.
I knew she was an Obama appointee. I didn't know that she did not have prior experience as a judge.
If I were going to go "big" on this one, I would look for what is happening (or has happened) in a somewhat similar case, from Colorado. Another federal judge. Some other lawyers who were pursuing claims of 2020 elections fraud.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-27-2021).]
Intelligent adults consider their words before they speak. When posting, some amount of background information should be learned before posting, otherwise, one might be mistaken for a fool.
You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a fool, would you?
(Your opportunity to be not taken as one may have already been lost)
If you were to go big? When is that gonna happen? Hasn't happened yet!
Intelligent adults consider their words before they speak. When posting, some amount of background information should be learned before posting, otherwise, one might be mistaken for a fool.
You wouldn't want to be mistaken for a fool, would you?
(Your opportunity to be not taken as one may have already been lost.)
Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black."
I could still be chuckling (if I wanted to) over the naivety of some of your forum posts that came early on in the Covid-19 pandemic.
I am not conceding that the Obama administration should be charged with an Error for nominating Judge Linda Parker to the federal bench.
What was her prior background and experience?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-27-2021).]
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).]
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).]
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).]
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 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).]
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).]
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).]
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).]
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."
It's judges like that gave Trump the drive and cause to put his own brand of judges in.
It's judges like that gave Trump the drive and cause to put his own brand of judges in.
The number one selection criteria for nomination and appointment to the federal bench by the Trump administration wasn't because a nominee was a "right wing activist".
It was being "a strict constructionist", which means a faithful adherence to the United States Constitution as written which is completely antithetical to the Leftists attempts to bend, twist, ignore, reinterpret and "reimagine" the Constitution to what they wish it should be.
Parker wasn't nominated by Obama because she is or was a legal or Constitutional scholar. She isn't.
Parker wasn't appointed by Obama because she had a stellar track record as an unbiased, fair, judge. She doesn't.
Parker was nominated by Obama to be exactly what she is.... a Leftist activist that rules not on the basis of law, but on her ideology.
Leftists employ activist judges to get what they so frequently cannot get by popular legislation.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-29-2021).]
In an op-ed for The Bulwark(.com), law professor and former assistant U.S. attorney Kimberly Wehle gives a big "thumbs up" to the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Linda V. Parker. (The "V" is for Vivienne. Not to be misread as the case of "Linda versus Parker.")
quote
Judge Linda Parker’s 110-page tome is already being circulated among law faculty colleagues as a textbook introductory lesson for our first-year law students, many of whom come to law school with the mistaken assumption—fueled by social media, television, and film—that a lawyer’s job is to single-mindedly win at all costs. To the contrary, the drafters of the federal rules—and Congress, which effectively blesses the rules—were well aware of the human penchant for mischief. Rule 11 is designed to stave off those worst instincts for the sanctity of the judicial system as a whole.
"Sidney Powell Gives 'Dumpster Fire' Interview Defending Lawyers’ Right To ‘Occasionally Misrepresent Things’ "
"It's not like she's facing multiple billion dollar defamation suits, right? Oh, wait ..."
quote
Why is Sidney Powell still talking? The infamous Kraken lawyer is facing a $1.3 billion defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems, a $2.7 billion claim from its competitor Smartmatic, and she just got benchslapped by a federal judge in Michigan and referred to the State Bar of Texas for possible suspension or disbarment.
And yet she still sat down with Australian reporter Sarah Ferguson to repeat those debunked allegations about the companies suing her while simultaneously confirming that she did exactly zero homework to factcheck her claims.
Just the first two paragraphs of a modestly sized column, in the wake of U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker's most recent sanctioning of Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and 7 other lawyers who carried the torch in Michigan for Trump World's election fraud claims.
