Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Today, Pennsylvania judge asked a lawyer for Trump point-blank whether he was alleging fraud. (Original Post) Nevilledog Nov 2020 OP
So is that: Case dismissed? dawg day Nov 2020 #1
No. The case doesn't allege fraud - this was just a nice bonus. Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #9
"Hanging chads," as it were (nt) Orrex Nov 2020 #14
Oopsie. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #2
And, OH, was she SO great!!!! MyOwnPeace Nov 2020 #5
It would be nice if all of these assholes had to make their claims under oath for all to see. tulipsandroses Nov 2020 #3
The courts should fine them $500 per word when the case has no merit. lindysalsagal Nov 2020 #4
The judges should start using Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #7
It helps to go to read the case documents. Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #10
A stupid case without legal or factual merit could still warrant Rule 11 sanctions. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #15
This one doesn't depend on the details - it is a question of whether the law Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #16
This should be in an ad and should be read out every time Democratic lawmakers speak in public. Doodley Nov 2020 #6
Then, what are they alleging? What criminal conducts are they complaining about? Claustrum Nov 2020 #8
It's a civil case - Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #17
Only the judges can save our democracy AmericanCanuck Nov 2020 #11
So... they've got nothing, nada, zilch. RestoreAmerica2020 Nov 2020 #12
If the issue was fraud - yes. But that is not what the suit was about. n/t Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #18
HAHA brettdale Nov 2020 #13

Ms. Toad

(34,001 posts)
9. No. The case doesn't allege fraud - this was just a nice bonus.
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 11:09 PM
Nov 2020

This is (like most of Trump's cases - bluster aside) an effort to pick off ballots without being required to specifically prove fraud.

The law requires certain formalities for absentee ballots (absent secrecy sleeve, secrecy sleeve that identifies a voter by name or political affiliation, deficiencies in signature or date of the declaration).

So, although the judge asked about allegations of fraud, the case is about whether every cross and dot of the absentee ballot must be complied with (regardless of voter intent).

MyOwnPeace

(16,920 posts)
5. And, OH, was she SO great!!!!
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 10:23 PM
Nov 2020

Wish I could find the clip about "Presidential Erections!"

"Er, Miss Litella, that's "Presidential Elections......"

tulipsandroses

(5,122 posts)
3. It would be nice if all of these assholes had to make their claims under oath for all to see.
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 10:19 PM
Nov 2020

Talking out your ass on Fox or Social Media is one thing, swearing to it under oath is another.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,614 posts)
7. The judges should start using Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 10:30 PM
Nov 2020

It's right there, and there's no reason they can't slam these idiots with sanctions under that rule, which says:

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) 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 unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) 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;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

Why any of these judges are tolerating this bullshit is beyond me. Whack the lawyers right in the wallet!

Ms. Toad

(34,001 posts)
10. It helps to go to read the case documents.
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 11:11 PM
Nov 2020

The case is stupid, but it isn't about fraud, and it passes the laugh test.

It is about 562 absentee ballots that had defects. Trump is alleging that they can't be counted because the voters didn't follow the rules (not that anyone tried to cheat).

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,614 posts)
15. A stupid case without legal or factual merit could still warrant Rule 11 sanctions.
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 11:19 PM
Nov 2020

Whether this particular case does depends on the details, but I'll bet at least some of the 10 cases that have been filed (so far) would.

Ms. Toad

(34,001 posts)
16. This one doesn't depend on the details - it is a question of whether the law
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 11:26 PM
Nov 2020

must be interpreted strictly. Go read the court documents.

While I think they are all loser cases (with the possible exception of the one being heard by the supreme court), being a loser case is different from being so lacking in legal or factual merit as to justify sanctions.

I have not yet seen any that fall in the latter category.

Cumulatively, you could make a strong argument that they are filed for improper purposes - but taken in isolation (as they are for Rule 11 sanctions) that is a much harder case to make.

Claustrum

(4,845 posts)
8. Then, what are they alleging? What criminal conducts are they complaining about?
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 10:56 PM
Nov 2020

Oh right, it was all hot air the whole time.

Ms. Toad

(34,001 posts)
17. It's a civil case -
Tue Nov 10, 2020, 11:31 PM
Nov 2020

And they are trying to stop the counting of 562 ballots because the voters didn't entirely comply with the requirements for filling out absentee ballots.

Republicans allege the elector is required to hand-write his or her address on the outer envelope of an absentee or mail-in ballot; the Democrats allege that they do not as long as the elector’s addres is otherwise identifiable from the envelope (so their eligibility to vote can be established).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Today, Pennsylvania judge...