1-55

[Safety]

tRump has won one out of fifty-five cases brought to court so far. One.

So much winning, eh MAGAts?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1336823023089946629

[Private Pickle]

"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings"

The cult just can’t seem to grasp this point.

[Safety]

The cult just can’t seem to grasp this point.

You know, there have been numerous discussions here in the past regarding frivolous lawsuits, so it would be interesting to see if tPF's homegrown lawyers would have a different opinion of categorizing what is occurring now as frivolous...

[Docthehun]

You know, there have been numerous discussions here in the past regarding frivolous lawsuits, so it would be interesting to see if tPF's homegrown lawyers would have a different opinion of categorizing what is occurring now as frivolous...

Spot on!

[DGUtley]

You know, there have been numerous discussions here in the past regarding frivolous lawsuits, so it would be interesting to see if tPF's homegrown lawyers would have a different opinion of categorizing what is occurring now as frivolous...

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading

https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:



it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.


Federal courts take this seriously.

[Safety]

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading

https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:



it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.


Federal courts take this seriously.

So, in other words, watch this space, because I have a suspicion a lot of these filings violated rule 1.

Must file in "good faith" right?

[Docthehun]

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading
https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions
Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Federal courts take this seriously.

I've not read them either, but I don't think the current case even meets #1. It could be however; that the SCOTUS leaves the door slightly open to revisit the whole issue regarding elections and how they're administered by each State. Absent any material fraud, I'd be hesitant to proceed without a rock solid case. This thrown together suit stands no chance of altering the outcome of this particular election. How it may affect future elections remains unclear.

I've believed from the outset that the SCOTUS and Federal Courts do indeed take this seriously. That's why I'm confident that the SCOTUS, especially the Conservatives, will safely stay away from any issue that's primarily political in nature. After all, had Trump won the election, not a single case of this nature would have ever been filed.. Correct?

[Peter1469]

I've not read them either, but I don't think the current case even meets #1. It could be however; that the SCOTUS leaves the door slightly open to revisit the whole issue regarding elections and how they're administered by each State. Absent any material fraud, I'd be hesitant to proceed without a rock solid case. This thrown together suit stands no chance of altering the outcome of this particular election. How it may affect future elections remains unclear.

I've believed from the outset that the SCOTUS and Federal Courts do indeed take this seriously. That's why I'm confident that the SCOTUS, especially the Conservatives, will safely stay away from any issue that's primarily political in nature. After all, had Trump won the election, not a single case of this nature would have ever been filed.. Correct?
Why do you think that?

[DGUtley]

So, in other words, watch this space, because I have a suspicion a lot of these filings violated rule 1. Must file in "good faith" right?


I haven't read them but they didn't stick around long. No sanctions were filed, though.

I've not read them either, but I don't think the current case even meets #1. It could be however; that the SCOTUS leaves the door slightly open to revisit the whole issue regarding elections and how they're administered by each State. Absent any material fraud, I'd be hesitant to proceed without a rock solid case. This thrown together suit stands no chance of altering the outcome of this particular election. How it may affect future elections remains unclear. I've believed from the outset that the SCOTUS and Federal Courts do indeed take this seriously. That's why I'm confident that the SCOTUS, especially the Conservatives, will safely stay away from any issue that's primarily political in nature. After all, had Trump won the election, not a single case of this nature would have ever been filed.. Correct?
yes, if Trump had won, they'd likely not have litigated these issues. Personally, I'd have wanted them to litigate any issues of impropriety win or lose - either side - if there are any. The integrity of the process is important to me.

[Docthehun]

Why do you think that?

If we're being honest...so do you!

[Docthehun]

I haven't read them but they didn't stick around long. No sanctions were filed, though.

yes, if Trump had won, they'd likely not have litigated these issues. Personally, I'd have wanted them to litigate any issues of impropriety win or lose - either side - if there are any. The integrity of the process is important to me.

Concur.

[Peter1469]

If we're being honest...so do you!
Joe had Dem lawyers all over. Had Trump won they would have sued.

[Docthehun]

Joe had Dem lawyers all over. Had Trump won they would have sued.

Speculation

[Peter1469]

Speculation
Not really. The Transition Integrity Project was set up in part to do just that.

[Docthehun]

Not really. The Transition Integrity Project was set up in part to do just that.

It's still speculation.

[Peter1469]

It's still speculation.
They were planning for legal action if they felt it was necessary. That is not speculation.

[Docthehun]

They were planning for legal action if they felt it was necessary. That is not speculation.

Be stubborn. Were any suits actually filed?

[Peter1469]

Be stubborn. Were any suits actually filed?
Not yet. They think they won. Why would they?

[Docthehun]

Not yet. They think they won. Why would they?

Boy, are you doing the crawl daddy now!

[Green Arrow]

Why do you think that?

I don’t recall off the top of my head if he filed any cases back in 2016/2017, all I recall was his voter fraud commission that was supposed to uncover 7 million illegal votes in California that made Trump win the popular vote by 3.5 mil instead of Hillary. An effort that also went nowhere.

[John Galt]

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading

https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:


it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Federal courts take this seriously.

Interesting info. It clearly describes almost every case trump has brought since his election. He has stalled the checks and balances via ridiculous lawsuits every time he his abuse of the Executive branch has been challenged.

[John Galt]

I haven't read them but they didn't stick around long. No sanctions were filed, though.

yes, if Trump had won, they'd likely not have litigated these issues. Personally, I'd have wanted them to litigate any issues of impropriety win or lose - either side - if there are any. The integrity of the process is important to me.
That seems to be the biggest problem. They are only targeting the issues that they deem 'unconstitutional' in the states where trump lost. Even though numerous states expanded mail voting due to Covid.

[Peter1469]

That seems to be the biggest problem. They are only targeting the issues that they deem 'unconstitutional' in the states where trump lost. Even though numerous states expanded mail voting due to Covid.

Why would they weaken their case by attacking states that they won?

[Docthehun]

Well, let's look at those Court nominees.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-judges-got-way-trump-001610751.html

[Crepitus]

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading

https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:



it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.


Federal courts take this seriously.

There have been discussions of sanctions for tRumps lawyers.

[Private Pickle]

The bar for "frivolous" is pretty high. I haven't read the pleadings (and don't have the time nor interest to) but we lawyers are required, whenever we sign a pleading, to do so under Rule 11 - which means that we are representing that the Pleading

https://casetext.com/rule/north-dakota-court-rules/north-dakota-rules-of-civil-procedure/pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-of-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-court-sanctions

Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it, an attorney or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:


it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
the factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Federal courts take this seriously.

So are a bunch of lawyers going to be going to the ethics committees for censure after this?

[DGUtley]

There have been discussions of sanctions for tRumps lawyers.


If they should be sanctioned, then they should be sanctioned. I have little patience for lawyers that violate Rule 11. I have less so for those lawyers with wealthy clients using the courts as a bully sword.

So are a bunch of lawyers going to be going to the ethics committees for censure after this?

That's not what Rule 11 is for. The judge handling the individual case would handle that (from what I've seen). Finally, I don't think that a Rule 11 violation is necessarily an ethics violation. It could be but might not be.

[John Galt]

Well, let's look at those Court nominees.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-judges-got-way-trump-001610751.htmlBoy...is he pissed. Oddly enough, he can't even name the justices that he seated.

[Red Lily]

tRump has won one out of fifty-five cases brought to court so far. One.

So much winning, eh MAGAts?

MAGAts?


The cult just can’t seem to grasp this point.

And this from a mod?

Poor form. In fact, really really BAD form!

[DGUtley]

@Safety (https://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226) - I saw this earlier this morning:

Hundreds of lawyers call for ethics probes of attorneys for election fraud claims; are bar charges likely?


https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/hundreds-of-lawyers-call-for-ethics-probes-of-lawyers-for-election-fraud-claims-is-it-a-likely-outcome

[DGUtley]

MAGAts?
And this from a mod?
Poor form. In fact, really really BAD form!


NOTICE - @Red Lily (https://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3496) - It is considered bad faith posting to hold a member's status as a moderator against said member. For this you have earned a TB. Moderators are permitted to post as members and should not be criticized for said posts with comments such as: "this from a mod". Please refrain. If you think the post violates the rules, please report it. Moderators have, in fact, been moderated just like other members. @Everybody, please note this admonition. It seems to be the criticism de jour for some. it is considered bad faith posting. Thank you.