Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification

[admin]

Judge Says Lin Wood’s Post-Election Lawsuits May Have Violated Several Professional Rules, Orders Him to Respond
by Adam Klasfeld
Law & Crime
Dec 22nd, 2020, 11:47 am

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Attorney Lin Wood’s lawsuits aimed to topple the 2020 election may have violated Delaware’s rules of professional conduct, preventing him from representing President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign advisor Carter Page in a defamation suit there, a judge found.

In a detailed order to show cause, Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz itemized defects and alleged unprofessional behavior in Wood’s lawsuits in Wisconsin and Georgia, including filing suit without a plaintiff’s authorization, submitting a false affidavit, and making a series of gaffes that the judge said call his competence into question.

“It appears to the Court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood’s motion he, has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct,” Karsnitz wrote in a 4-page order to show cause.

Karsnitz is presiding over Page’s defamation lawsuit against Oath—the parent company of Yahoo News and the Huffington Post—alleging that their articles “portrayed him as a traitor to America.” Wood has been pursuing Page’s cause, but his post-election litigation may torpedo the attorney-client relationship.

The order to show cause that may disqualify Wood was issued on Friday, entered the docket on Saturday, and was provided by the court to Law&Crime on Tuesday morning.

The judge tore into Wood’s lawyering in the so-called “Kraken” litigation, a name given to litigation by fellow right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell; all four lawsuits filed in its name were torn asunder by federal judges, leaving an extensive record that could haunt the attorneys that filed them. The Kraken has since limped onto the Supreme Court docket.

In Wisconsin, a Republican candidate for Congress complained that Wood’s legal team named him as a plaintiff without authorization.

Judge Karsnitz cited that episode along with a series of gaffes in his complaint, including the failure to list an address, failing to file documents under seal, submitting a motion in draft form and repeatedly being skewered for violating the court’s rules.

As noted in the order to show cause, a quotation in one of the case’s filings was “found by the Court to be fictitious.”

“The citation was to a point of law critical to the case,” Karsnitz added.

U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper pointed out the alleged act of legal fabulism in a ruling dismissing the Wisconsin case.

“Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country,” Pepper wrote in a 45-page ruling on Dec. 9. “One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the ‘why.’ But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks.”

Judge Karsnitz also questioned Wood’s legal antics as a plaintiff in Georgia litigation, in a case thrown out for having “no basis in fact in law.”

That legal finding may put Wood in violation of Delaware’s professional rules.

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so,” those rules state, as cited by the order.

Karsnitz also cited Wood’s “Exhibit Q,” an affidavit by Russell James Ramsland, Jr. roasted for confusing the states of Michigan and Minnesota.

“Mr. Wood’s conduct in filing this false affidavit violates DRPC 1.1 (Competence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements/False Statement of Material Fact), and Misconduct (Dishonesty and Deceit),” the order stated.

Wood is not licensed to practice in Delaware. He was allowed by the court to represent Page pro hac vice in the state. Judge Karsnitz called that permission into question.

“All of the foregoing gives the Court concerns as to the appropriateness of continuing the order granting Mr. Wood authorization to appear in this Court pro hac vice,” the judge said.

Wood must file any response to the order to show cause ruling by Jan. 6, 2021, but he already reacted on Twitter.

Lin Wood
@LLinWood
Judge in Delaware issued show cause order against me today to revoke my appearance as counsel for @carterwpage in defamation case, contending I violated Bar rules by filing GA case now before US Supreme Ct. & was co-counsel in Wisconsin election case filed by @SidneyPowell1.
7:54 PM Dec 18, 2020

Responding to an email requesting comment, Wood denied violating Delaware’s professional rules.

“I am presently engaging counsel to represent me to determine why this order was issued and to defend against its false accusations against me,” Wood told Law&Crime in an email.

Oral argument on Oath’s motion to dismiss Page’s defamation lawsuit has been scheduled for Jan. 13.

Read Judge Karsnitz’s order to show cause below: [PDF HERE]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CARTER PAGE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
OATH, INC., a corporation,
Defendant.

C.A. No. S20C-07-030 CAK

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

Pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1, the Court sua sponte is issuing this Rule to Show Cause why the permission to practice in this case issued to L. Lin Wood, Jr., Esquire should not be revoked. The following appears to the Court:

1) In this case alleging Defendant defamed Plaintiff, the Court gave Mr. Wood permission pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 90.1 to appear as attorney for Plaintiff, pro hac vice by order dated August 18, 2020. The order granted Mr. Wood's motion, which contained the typical agreement to abide by all State and local rules, the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct1 and the Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers.2

2) It appears to the Court that, since the granting of Mr. Wood's motion he has engaged in conduct in other jurisdictions, which, had it occurred in Delaware, would violate the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("DRPC").

3) The Georgia Litigation

a. Mr. Wood is Plaintiff in the case of L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Rattensperger, et al., 2020 WI. 6817513 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Nov. 20, 2020. In that case, Mr. Wood sought, inter alia, to prevent Georgia's certification of the votes in the general election for President of the United States. In its opinion denying the relief sought by Plaintiff, the Court said:

Viewed in comparison to the lack of any demonstrable harm to Wood, this Court finds no basis in fact or law to grant him the relief he seeks. (Emphasis supplied).

b. Mr. Wood's conduct in filing this suit which the Court found had no basis in "fact or law" may violate DRPC Rule 3.1:

"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so..."

c. The False Affidavit

Mr. Wood filed or caused to be filed the affidavit of Russell James Ramsland, Jr. in the Georgia litigation which contained materially false information, misidentifying the counties as to which claimed fraudulent voting information occurred.

d. Mr. Wood's conduct in filing this false affidavit violates DRPC 1.1 (Competence, 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements/False Statement of Material Fact), and Misconduct (Dishonesty and Deceit).

4) The Wisconsin Litigation

Mr. Wood is one of several counsel for plaintiffs in the case of William Feehan and Derrick Van Order v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al.3 In that case it appears:

a. The suit was filed on behalf of a person who had not authorized it.

b. The Complaint and related papers had multiple deficiencies as outlined in an order dated December 20, 2020 issued by The Honorable Pamela Pepper:

(i) The Order indicated the filings had been forwarded to defense counsel "...at the following address..." with no addresses listed.

(ii) Documents were allegedly filed under seal, but were not.

(iii) The Complaint requesting a temporary restraining order was not verified or supported by an appropriate affidavit, as required by Court Rules.

(iv) The Complaint contained no certification of efforts to notify the adverse parties, as required by Court Rules.

(v) Apparently, a motion for declaratory relief was filed in draft form.

(vi) The papers filed in Wisconsin asked for various injunctive remedies, but did not ask for a hearing.

(vii) While the pleadings, including a proposed order, asks for emergency relief and an "expedited" injunction, nothing indicates whether the plaintiffs were asking the Court to act more quickly than normal, or why.

c. In a response to defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which was not signed by Mr. Wood, but which was filed while he was one of the counsel of record, a citation for a case, including a quotation was found by the Court to be fictitious. The citation was to a point of law critical to the case.

d. The foregoing conduct in the Wisconsin case appears to violate DRPC 1.1 (Competence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct).

5) All the foregoing gives the Court concerns as to the appropriateness of continuing the order granting Mr. Wood authorization to appear in this Court pro hac vice.

6) Mr. Wood and local counsel shall have until January 6, 2021 to respond to this Rule to Show Cause. If defendant has a position on the Rule, defendant shall file it in writing by the same date.

7) Currently in this case oral argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. The Court will hear counsel on that date in response to this Rule To Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Craig A. Karsnitz

cc. Prothonotary
All Counsel of Record

FILED PROTHONOTARY
SUSSEX COUNTY
2020 DEC 18 2020

_______________

Notes:

1. Prof. Cond. R. (Jan. 1, 2019).

2. Prim. Prof. (Nov. 1, 2003).

3. 2020 WI. 7250219 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Wisc. (Dec. 9, 2020).

[admin]

Glenn Kirschner: ‘There Is No Line Donald Trump Won’t Cross’
by Ali Velshi
The Last Word
MSNBC
Dec 22, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Glenn Kirschner, Former Federal Prosecutor] It seems like there is no line Donald Trump won't cross. And I will say to this old prosecutor, it feels like what he just did was like an indiscriminate drive-by on the rule of law. I mean, he pardons people who are lying to the FBI as part of the Russia probe; he pardons Republicans who were either stealing from their own donors, committing campaign finance violations or engaged in insider trading. But what galls me the most, and hits home for me personally, is the Blackwater pardons of these four Blackwater contractors who slaughtered innocent, unarmed Iraqi men, women and young people. That case was prosecuted three times by my former office, the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. The lead prosecutor, a gentleman by the name of T. Patrick Martin, is somebody I tried murder cases with. He poured his heart and soul into fighting for justice for those Iraqi victims. And Ali, my office would bring the victims over from Iraq, and their surviving family members of the 17 who were murdered, over and over and over again for those three trials. And I can tell you that those Iraqi citizens were equal parts heartened that the American criminal justice system cared about their victimization, and shocked at all of the time, energy, and effort we poured into holding those Blackwater killers accountable for what they did. I consider that one of our proudest achievements at the DC U.S. Attorney's office, holding those men accountable for the way they ravaged, murdered, victimized those Iraqi citizens. And now Donald Trump has killed that justice we achieved in a very real sense. This is perhaps the single greatest affront to victim's rights I saw in my 30 years as a prosecutor.

[admin]

Federal Prosecutors Consider Search Warrants for Giuliani's Emails. Barr Soon Won't Be Able To Help
by Glenn Kirschner
Justice Matters
Dec 22, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Glenn Kirschner] Let's talk about Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor being investigated by current federal prosecutors. And I wonder if Rudy understands that we don't care if he's the President's lawyer or not. If he broke the law, he needs to be held accountable, because justice matters.

Hey all. Glenn Kirschner here. So we've had some really interesting recent revelations about Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Here's how Axios reported it:

"Giuliani Asks DHS" -- Department of Homeland Security -- "About Seizing Voting Machines [by Jonathan Swan]" And the article reads in part:

Rudy Giuliani called Ken Cuccinelli, second in command at the Department of Homeland Security, on Thursday night and asked him whether DHS could seize voting machines, a source familiar with the call confirmed to Axios.

So now we have Rudy Giuliani contacting federal agencies and telling them, "Why don't you just go ahead and take the states' voting machines. You know, we actually have a word for that in the law: "Theft." The federal government doesn't have magical authority to just take property that doesn't belong to them. Well, except for a little something called "eminent domain" by which the feds can take our land provided they pay us just compensation. That's a topic for another day. Generally speaking, they can't just take things that don't belong to them. But given that that's where Rudy Giuliani's head is at the moment, is it any wonder what we heard reported out yesterday about Rudy Guiliani?: "Feds Consider Warrant to See Rudy Giuliani's Emails: Report [by Matt Stich]."

Now that was a story that NBC News first broke, and here is how it was reported out by New York Magazine:

Though the scope of the investigation is still unknown, the report suggests that the investigation into President Trump's personal attorney is still active. As NBC News notes, for the legal request to go forward, the Southern District of New York needs "Washington's approval before its prosecutors can ask a judge to sign a search warrant for materials [like emails and text messages] that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, according to department policy."

So let's talk about that for a moment. The federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have been in discussions with Main justice, the Department of Justice in Washington, wanting to seek a search warrant for Rudy Giuliani's emails, text messages, electronic communications. So what do we know? We know, and we have known for many months, that the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors were criminally investigating Rudy Giuliani. Not only that, they were investigating and prosecuting Rudy Giuliani's business partners, his associates, perhaps his partners in crime: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. I always kind of thought "Lev and Igor's Excellent Adventures" would be a good name for a movie. But I digress.

So we know that the SDNY prosecutors have been going after Lev and Igor, Rudy Giuliani's business partners. Here's what we don't know. What has Bill Barr's involvement in all of this been? Has Bill Barr been a roadblock, a speedbump, a firewall protecting Rudy Giuliani, and by extension Rudy Giuliani's most famous client? Has he put the brakes on the criminal investigation that we know has been up and running into Rudy Giuliani? We have to ask ourselves that question, particularly in light of this reporting that apparently the SDNY prosecutors have reached out to Main Justice to try to get authorization for a search warrant for Rudy Giuliani's electronic communications.

But you know what we do know, folks? We know that it's all about to come to an end, because Bill Barr leaves the job tomorrow. He's done as Attorney General. Thank goodness! And Donald Trump leaves the job of President in a few weeks. But do you know what I can promise you? The investigation and prosecution of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman will continue in the Biden Administration. And by implication, the investigation of Rudy Giuliani, and perhaps an ultimate prosecution, will continue, in the Biden Administration. Of that, I'm certain.

Some people may say, "Yeah, but you know, Donald Trump is probably just going to pardon Rudy, so it's all for naught. We won't be able to prosecute Rudy for federal crimes." That may be true. Of course, we can still prosecute Rudy if he committed any state crimes. A Presidential pardon can't help him on that front. But I would ask you to also keep this in mind: You can only pardon somebody for past crimes, so that if Rudy Giuliani has been in a conspiracy, and if that conspiracy continues beyond the date of the pardon, if Donald Trump pardons Rudy today, but whatever conspiracy they have been in continues after today, well, he's still on the hook, because the crime isn't complete, so the pardon will not have full effect.

Let me use another example. Mike Flynn. We all know that on November 25th, Mike Flynn was pardoned by Donald Trump for past crimes. But what have we seen Mike Flynn doing in recent weeks? Advocating that the military should go in to states that Donald Trump lost and re-run the election. You know what that is? That's conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 133. Take it from me -- I used to be an Army Jag prosecuting court martial cases. Do you know what else it is? It's a violation of the UCMJ Article 134: Conduct that brings disrepute, disgrace, on the Armed Forces. So there are some that are suggesting, some former generals in fact, that Mike Flynn should be ordered to active duty so he can be court-martialed for the crimes that he has been committing in violation of the UCMJ in recent weeks after the time he was pardoned. Because remember, you can't pardon future crimes.

Now this is a topic that we're going to take on in some detail tomorrow, but I mentioned that just to highlight the fact that if Rudy Giuliani's crimes continue beyond the date he's pardoned -- and why wouldn't they? -- I mean, he's Rudy Giuliani -- well then, the pardon will not give him complete immunity from prosecution.

[admin]

Disgrace To His Uniform’: Col. Wilkerson On Flynn’s Martial Law Election Plot
by Chris Hayes
All In
MSNBC
Dec 21, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

[Chris Hayes] Now for some perspective on what exactly is happening, I want to turn to Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. At one level, Colonel, again, this is a story similar to many stories we have heard, where the President has a crazy idea and people are trying to walk him away from it. In this case, though, it's hard to get your head around just how wildly dangerous and offensive it is. What is your reaction to what you have heard about this meeting, and what the President is currently attempting to consider?

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] My first reaction, of course, is, "don't take counsel of your fears." We've just gone through one of the most incredible election sequences in our Nation's history, certainly since World War II. More people voted by more methodoligies in a pandemic environment, etc., etc. I have to commend all of those people out there in every state who worked so hard to deliver a free and fair election. At the same time I say that, I have to say, my fears are somewhat significant with a former Lieutenant-General of the United States Army saying what Mike Flynn said with regard to martial law and going to the battleground states and essentially reconducting the election. Were I the Secretary of Defense, I'd call him back to active duty, which is in the prerogative of the Secretary of Defense, and I'd court-martial him. At a minimum, I'd cite him for Incitement to Insurrection. This is not something that a military officer should do. You serve until you're roughly 85 years old. It's half-pay. It's not necessarily retired pay. You can be called back anytime. I got my letter from Secretary Rumsfeld when I was Chief of Staff to Secretary Powell. I was called back to active duty. I was judged to be in a critical position and didn't have to do it, but that's the power of the military over this General. And he needs to be rebuked! He needs to be reprimanded, and it needs to be done officially. That would be the best way to do it.

These other people, like Bannon, and Powell, and so forth -- they are sycophants who are seeking whatever they can gain from the magic aura of this man before it dissipates. And it frightens me as to the things that they could do if the 25th Amendment, or something like it, is not implemented, and we don't remove him from office. There's a lot of time left. When we worked on this at the Transition Integrity Project, we saw Trump do some pretty desperate things. One of the things we saw him do that I'm not waiting eagerly to see if he fulfills it, is he did everything he could possibly do, the Team playing his team, to ruin Biden's first year in office, everything from allowing him to get cabinet officers confirmed, because he had such control that we've seen demonstrated over the Senate of the United States, to not allowing good transitions to take place.

I understand, from inside sources, that those transitions are -- for the most part -- taking place, but they are taking place, in some instances, grudgingly, and that's not the way transitions should occur.

[Chris Hayes] Your point about General Flynn, just to circle back to that again, I find the General's trajectory here really unnerving. I mean, this is someone who was really celebrated, who had a fairly sterling record, people thought he was an incredible intelligence officer, and he was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency before he was essentially fired, and to watch somebody who served, and had this reputation, and is known by a lot of people who work with him go on the trajectory he has where he was essentially an unpaid for agent of a foreign government, the Turkish government, which he did not disclose, and now idly talking about martial law, it's a very unnerving trajectory!

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] It is! In my view he's a disgrace to his uniform. And he's one of those examples, and I knew several of them when I was in the military some 30 years plus, he's one of those examples of a person who gets squirreled away in a special community, in this case Special Ops and also Intelligence, and he grows up to Flag rank and no one really applies any adult supervision, and I include in that General McChrystal in Afghanistan when he worked for General McChrystal. I blame General McChrystal for putting him in the position that he's in right now to a certain extent.

So these people come along, and they get to a position where they really have some authority, in this case much beyond the three stars, National Security Adviser almost, and they then show their true colors. And I think that's what Flynn is doing. Otherwise I've got to pronounce him a psychotic, or worse!

[Chris Hayes] You seem unnerved, but also somewhat confident about the situation we are in, which I think tracks where I am. Again, there is a dwindling amount of power the President has. There's kind of a whiff of desperation. He's going to, sort of, more and more bizarre, crankish kinds of voices. And yet the authority of the Government still rests in the man's hands for 30 days. And we've been anticipating break-glass moments -- I don't think we've quite gotten one yet. But are you confident, basically, based on the reporting, and also on what you know about the institutions, particularly the Department of Defense, that he will not be allowed to do anything like he is contemplating?

[Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell] There will be nothing with the military in my very strong view. The military will not do anything untoward, no matter what orders come from him. And indeed, if the orders were truly untoward, the 25th Amendment might be implemented. I don't see how people could stop from doing that.

What worries me, Chris, right now, is the opportunistic advantage that's out there right now for a very hard press by COVID 19 -- North Korea, for example, Kim Jong Un -- for a very pressured China with regard to what Taipei is doing, and Taiwan in general, and in the situation with Iran where we have them just waiting. These are the kinds of things that Trump could leave as a blow to the country, and it would wind up being a significant blow to the country into the new administration.

25th Amendment: Presidential Disability and Succession

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. The 25th Amendment changed a portion of Article II, Section 1

Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[admin]

Trump met with Pence before calling on the vice president to thwart the Electoral College: report
Pence was named in a recent lawsuit that seeks to block him from ratifying Biden's victory on Jan. 6
by Roger Solenberger
December 24, 2020 10:06PM (UTC)

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Just before President Donald Trump shared a tweet calling for Vice President Mike Pence to "act" against the Senate's coming ratification of the Electoral College vote, he reportedly met for more than an hour with his second-in-command, CNN reported.

While a person familiar with the events told CNN that the Oval Office discussion was "entirely unrelated" to the demand in the tweet, the person declined to say if the ratification issue came up. Trump soon left town for Mar-a-Lago, reportedly still obsessed with overturning his loss to President-elect Joe Biden. On the flight to Palm Beach, accompanied by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — the former spokesperson for LifeLock brand identity theft protection services — Trump retweeted a demand for Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, an impossibility that arose from baseless chatter in right-wing internet crawlspaces.

Giuliani will spend the holidays at the outgoing president's Mar-a-Lago club, where the two men will likely discuss the limited post-election actions that may still be available to them. Trump and his GOP allies have gone one-for-sixty so far in their efforts to sue their way to victory ahead of the Electoral College's vote. Giuliani now faces a defamation suit from an executive at a voting machine company who was forced into hiding following threats on his life stemming from some of the former New York mayor's remarks in those efforts.

Trump has recently griped that his vice president, who as President of the Senate will formally preside over the ratification of his loss, has not gone to bat for him. CNN reported that Trump has raised the issue with Pence, but appears "confused" about why the vice president can't use his role to overturn the election.

Speaking this Tuesday at an event in Florida for the young conservative group Turning Point USA, Pence did not mention the ratification, but promised to fight "until every legal vote is counted" and "every illegal vote is thrown out."

That same day, the conservative Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Pence and the entire Electoral College, claiming that Pence should not be allowed to count the votes because states have not "affirmatively voted to certify the Presidential electors" — despite the fact that the electoral college has already voted. The court filing includes Pence due to what the plaintiffs describe as his "legal obligations under the Constitution and federal law" to preside over ratification.

"I can't even describe it," election law attorney Marc Elias wrote on Twitter. "It's really dumb."

The vice president is not constitutionally bound to ratify the final vote. For instance, in 1969, when then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey declined to preside over his loss to Richard Nixon, the role fell to the Senate president pro tempore — a post currently held by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

In a parallel fit of absurdity, Rep. Mo Brooks, an Alabama conservative, has volunteered to lead a floor debate on Jan. 6, and claims he has the support of "multiple Senators." Brooks recently discussed the plan at a meeting with Trump and a number of GOP representatives, and claimed Pence had made an appearance. The debate as planned would last 12 hours, after which Biden would be ratified as the next President of the United States.

A Pence spokesperson in a lengthy email exchange refused to reply to Salon's request for comment.

[admin]

Armed Protesters Break Into Oregon State Capitol Building, Break Windows, Assault Journalists, Hit Police With Chemical Agent
by Tom Tapp
Deadline
December 21, 2020


Armed protesters storming the Oregon State Capitol
AP Photo/Andrew Selsky

According to the Oregon State Police and multiple media reports, a group of armed protesters broke windows and stormed the capitol while the state legislature was in session on Monday. Legislators were debating Covid-19 restrictions and related public assistance in closed session. The only people permitted inside the building were members of the Salem Police Department and the Oregon State Police as well as lawmakers, staff and reporters.

The protesters, many with flak jackets, military helmets and some carrying long guns with multiple magazines, entered the capitol building at about 8:30 am. According to Salem PD, “at least one of the protesters used chemical agents on the police…OSP [Oregon State Police] used inert pepper ball, while dealing with these protestors.”

At 10:30 police had gathered in sufficient numbers to push the crowd out of the building. It was then that “another individual used bear spray against police officers,” according to an OSP statement. “He was arrested on multiple charges including trespassing and assaulting a police officer.

Salem Police Department
@SalemPoliceDept
UPDATE @1140: Since approximately 8030 this morning, December 21, protesters assembled on the grounds of the @OregonCapitol. At about 0930 @ORStatePolice declared an unlawful assembly & made various audible announcements for dispersal to the crowd outside & warnings to leave to the individuals who forced their way into the Capitol. @ORStatePolice continues to make those announcements. All events taking place in the capitol bldg & on its grounds are under OSP's jurisdiction. SPD is assisting OSP as mutual aid.
At this time, the streets around the @OregonCapitol grounds are closed and Salem Police officers are providing support to ensure the public's safety on our city streets.
Please avoid the area and follow all directions for detours. Thank you.
#salemoregon

Later in the day, the protesters returned and tried to gain entry again, kicking in glass entryway doors, before police again repelled them.

Nick Knudsen @NickKnudsenUS Dec 21, 2020
Replying to @NickKnudsenUS
This guy seems nice.
Nick Knudsen
@NickKnudsenUS
Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem.
4:11 PM Dec 21, 2020

Those assembled also attacked a photographer for the Salem Statesman General. One is heard on video telling the photographer, "I'm gonna f*ck you up," as the journalist leaves. See videos above and below.

Nick Knudsen
@NickKnudsenUS
Right wing thugs intimidated and threatened journalist @_Briant_ICT - for trying to cover their unlawful assembly at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon today.
They tried to storm the Capitol with pistols and rifles in protest of COVID-19 restrictions.
3:49 PM Dec 21, 2020

Those assembled also attacked a photographer for the Salem Statesman General. One is heard on video telling the photographer, “I’m gonna f*ck you up,” as the journalist leaves. See videos above and below.

[admin]

The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell
by Lawrence O'Donnell
MSNBC
Dec 24, 2020



Well, the outgoing President is attempting a coup. Not something "kind of like" a coup, not something "close to" a coup, it's the actual thing: It's a coup! And it's everything Donald Trump promised to do and said that he wanted to do all along ...

[admin]

Bar Charge Re: Dennis I. Wilenchik, John “Jack” D. Wilenchik, Lee Miller, Wilenchik & Bartness; Alexander Kolodin SBN 020826, Christopher Viskovic SBN 013860, Chris Ford 029437, and Sue Becker MO 64721; Brett Johnson SBN 921527, Eric Spender SBN 022707, Snell & Wilmer, Attorney for Republican National Committee; Kory Langhofer SBN 024722 and Thomas Basile SBN 031150; Davis Spilsbury, Erick G. Kaardal, No. 1035141* Special Counsel to Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, William F. Mohrman, 168816,* Gregory Erickson 0276522* Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brandon Johnson, Emily P. Newman, Sidney Katherine Powell of Sidney Powell PC in Dallas, TX; Howard Kleinhenbdler, New York, NY; Julia Zuszua Haller, Washington, DC; L Lin Wood, Atlanta, GA.
by Dianne Post, Bob McWhirter, Roxana Bacon, Brendan Mahoney, Gail Gianasi Natale, Amelia Craig Cramer, and Victor Aronow
December 16, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Arizona Republican Party v. Adrian Fontes et al.: [O]nly Maricopa County, where the attorneys’ favored candidate lost, was sued. Other counties using the same counting protocols and process were not, since the “right” candidate won there...

Laurie Aquilera et al v. Adrian Fontes et al.:The judge noted that the plaintiffs said 13 times that the county did not deliver a “perfect” election but the plaintiff’s own expert testified there is no such thing as a “perfect” election nor does the law expect nor require a perfect election given the fallibility of humans and machines. Two people claimed they had difficulty voting. Both ballots were in fact in the machines and one received notice that it was in fact counted. The two voters expressed worry that their votes would not be counted. That was the extent of their concern.

Such flimsy evidence did not substantiate cognizable legal claims. The relief requested was not appropriate. The plaintiffs failed to allege harm sufficient to achieve standing. Both “worried” voters cast their ballots, both were told they were counted. Given free range to present their cases, Plaintiffs could not show that defendants had done anything wrong, could not show the plaintiffs were injured, and did not seek relief that was within the court’s jurisdiction...

Supreme Court of Az, Kelli Ward v. Jackson et al.: The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court because there was no evidence of misconduct or illegal votes or fraud or a high error rate. In fact the lower court judge had gone out of his way, some say illegally, to allow the plaintiffs to examine 1,626 duplicated ballots only to find nothing. The tiny percentage of errors showed no fraud of any kind...

Stevenson et al v. Ducey et al.: This suit presented one of the more bizarre claims: that unidentified grant money was distributed to direct the actions of election officials by some “shadow government” orchestrated by Mark Zuckerberg, that there was an unusually large number of absentee ballots and that there was outreach to the elderly and historically disenfranchised populations. It was also alleged that some anonymous unknown government data (not the same “shadow government” apparently) said the real difference between candidates was 300,000....

Bowyer et al v. Ducey et al.: [T]he lawsuit is filled with baseless claims from anonymous sources and expert witnesses with no expertise. It offers no facts or first-hand knowledge. Some of the more bizarre allegations are that Venezuela, Iran, and China rigged the election through voting machines, a former military intelligence analyst known as Spider rigged it, and some unfathomable data analysis from an unknown source proved this. This suit, like the others, is an attempt to use Arizona courts to attack democracy, to pummel our federal and Arizona state Constitution, and the rule of law, all in violation of lawyers’ oath of admission. This suit is so absurd it is a parody of pleading. It claims that the Arizona’s Secretary of State and Governor conspired with various domestic and international actors to manipulate Arizona’s 2020 General Election. With 300 pages of attachments based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections, the suit has not a shred of legally admissible evidence. The suit violates litigation 101 by not even alleging that the named defendants did anything in violation of law. Their conclusions, all drawn from unreliable or unidentified sources, are pure fiction; for example, one anonymous witness blames Hugo Chavez, former President of Venezuela, now dead 7 years...

In all of the cases, the offered evidence was found to be false, and there is not much doubt the attorneys knew that which is also in violation of ER 3.3.

Law Offices of Robert J. McWhirter
Robert J. McWhirter
812 North Second Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Bob@robertjmcwhirter.com
(480) 999-4004

December 16, 2020

Lawyer Regulation Division
State Bar of Arizona
4201 North 24th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288

Bar Charge re: Dennis I. Wilenchik, John “Jack” D. Wilenchik, Lee Miller, Wilenchik & Bartness; Alexander Kolodin SBN 020826, Christopher Viskovic SBN 013860, Chris Ford 029437, and Sue Becker MO 64721; Brett Johnson SBN 921527, Eric Spender SBN 022707, Snell & Wilmer, Attorney for Republican National Committee; Kory Langhofer SBN 024722 and Thomas Basile SBN 031150; Davis Spilsbury, Erick G. Kaardal, No. 1035141* Special Counsel to Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, William F. Mohrman, 168816,* Gregory Erickson 0276522* Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brandon Johnson, Emily P. Newman, Sidney Katherine Powell of Sidney Powell PC in Dallas, TX; Howard Kleinhenbdler, New York, NY; Julia Zuszua Haller, Washington, DC; L Lin Wood, Atlanta, GA.

TO THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA: Disciplinary Department

The U.S. and Arizona judicial systems are designed to give very wide latitude in bringing claims including unpopular and novel claims, but there are limits. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to bring claims that have legal and factual merit. As Arizona attorneys, we are obligated to report when another lawyer fails in ethical obligations in such a way that it reflects on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer and reflects poorly on the legal profession. The undersigned believe that to be the case here.

The 2020 presidential election has been politically contentious. We are loath to wade into the politics in this forum. Our concern here is the repeated presentation of utterly meritless cases that have been in the Arizona state and federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court by local and out of state counsel, knowing that the cases lacked legal merit and any factual foundation whatsoever. Confidence in the legal system is seriously eroded when attorneys treat lawsuits as a platform for broadcasting “gossip and innuendo,” utterly devoid of factual proof, as a political stunt. That is what has happened repeatedly in Arizona and is the basis for this report of ethical violations by said attorneys under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

First, we believe we must file this complaint. Under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, lawyers have a duty to report professional misconduct.

ER 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority, except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by law.

Thus, it is our professional duty to report a host of legal and ethical violations by the named attorneys in conjunction with recent Arizona litigation surrounding the 2020 presidential election.

We are not alone.

Over 3,000 lawyers from across the country, including professors of legal ethics, have signed a letter, that was published in the New York Times on Dec. 7 and Washington Post on Dec. 9, explaining that lawyers must mobilize members of our profession to fulfill their responsibility to protect and defend the rule of law and uphold the core principles and values of our democracy.

The letter outlines that this barrage of litigation is based not on law but on a clear political agenda: to undermine confidence in elections that will inevitably subvert constitutional democracy. As the letter says, “Sadly, the President’s primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers, obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law. Bar Associations need to condemn this abuse and bar disciplinary authorities need to investigate it.”

Lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution. The amended version of the oath of Admission to the Arizona Bar became effective January 2, 2017 and states:

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Arizona;

I will treat the courts of justice and judicial officers with due respect;

I will not counsel or maintain any action, proceeding, or defense that lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law;

I will be honest in my dealings with others and not make false or misleading statements of fact or law;

I will fulfill my duty of confidentiality to my client; I will not accept compensation for representing my client from anyone other than my client without my client's knowledge and approval;

I will avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct; I will not advance any fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by my duties to my client or the tribunal;

I will support the fair administration of justice, professionalism among lawyers, and legal representation for those unable to afford counsel;

I will at all times faithfully and diligently adhere to the rules of professional responsibility and A Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism of the State Bar of Arizona.

The attorneys in these cases in Arizona, ten lawsuits and twenty-one lawyers in all, have violated their oaths and their professional ethics. There is no exception to the Rules simply because someone holds passionate partisan beliefs. As the letter signed by over 3,000 lawyers says,

it is indefensible for lawyers to falsely proclaim widespread voting fraud, submit a pattern of frivolous court claims and actively seek to undermine citizens’ faith in our election’s integrity.

We condemn this conduct without reservation. It demeans the legal profession and the multitudes of lawyers of all political persuasions who daily serve their clients and the public honorably. Our profession needs to affirm that this behavior grossly deviates from the bar’s deep commitment to democratic institutions and the fact-based processes that maintain our democracy’s vitality.

That is why we ask that the Bar take seriously and do a thorough investigation and follow through on this complaint and its companion complaint filed earlier regarding one of the lawsuits.

Below is a brief summary of the ten different lawsuits that were filed by the twenty-one different attorneys:

1. Aguilera et al v. Fontes et al, CV 2020-014083 and CV 2020-014248, Hon. Margaret R. Mahoney, filed 11/2020, attorney Alexander M. Kolodin.

After motion practice and an order to show cause hearing, answers were not filed and a motion to dismiss from the plaintiff was, so the case was dismissed. See below as well.

2. Arizona Republican Party v. Adrian Fontes et al., CV2020-014553, Hon. John Hannah. Filed November 12, 2020. Attorneys were Dennis I. Wilenchik, John “Jack” D. Wilenchik, Lee Miller, Wilenchik & Bartness.

The defendant pointed out that the case had no substantial justification and was brought to delay and harass. Plaintiff’s attorneys knew there was no merit to the claim as the requested hand count had already been announced, and the state Attorney General had released a letter publicly confirming that fact. Indeed, Lee Miller, named in this complaint, had worked in the Secretary of State’s office and was well aware that the challenged counting process had been in existence for nearly 10 years without issue. And finally, only Maricopa County, where the attorneys’ favored candidate lost, was sued. Other counties using the same counting protocols and process were not, since the “right” candidate won there.

The goal in the spurious filings was to rally the anti-election base and delay the certification of the election results.

Clearly the suits were filed in bad faith, to spread disinformation about election results and add to the false claim that the election was “rigged.” For politicians to spout that nonsense in a press conference is one thing, but for attorneys to try to use the courts solely for political disruption is not allowed.

3. Laurie Aquilera et al v. Adrian Fontes et al. CV2020-014562, Hon. Margaret Mahoney, Filed 11/12/2020. The attorneys were Alexander Kolodin SBN 020826, Christopher Viskovic SBN 013860, and Sue Becker MO 64721. The case was dismissed November 29, 2020.

The judge noted that the plaintiffs said 13 times that the county did not deliver a “perfect” election but the plaintiff’s own expert testified there is no such thing as a “perfect” election nor does the law expect nor require a perfect election given the fallibility of humans and machines. Two people claimed they had difficulty voting. Both ballots were in fact in the machines and one received notice that it was in fact counted. The two voters expressed worry that their votes would not be counted. That was the extent of their concern.

Such flimsy evidence did not substantiate cognizable legal claims. The relief requested was not appropriate. The plaintiffs failed to allege harm sufficient to achieve standing. Both “worried” voters cast their ballots, both were told they were counted. Given free range to present their cases, Plaintiffs could not show that defendants had done anything wrong, could not show the plaintiffs were injured, and did not seek relief that was within the court’s jurisdiction. So the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim or alternatively denying relief for failure to produce evidence demonstrating entitlement to any relief.

4. Donald J Trump for President Inc, et al. v. Katie Hobbs, et al. CV 2020- 014248, filed 11/7/2020 Hon. Daniel J. Kiley, original attorneys were Brett Johnson SBN 921527, Eric Spender SBN 022707, Snell & Wilmer, Attorney for Republican National Committee. Later attorneys Kory Langhofer SBN 024722 and Thomas Basile SBN 031150 took over representation.

This is the “green button” case in which it is alleged that the election should be overturned due to overvotes. It was merged with 014083, Aquilera v. Fontes et al, and both ultimately were dismissed. Attorneys Johnson and Spender filed a Notice of Clarification and Withdrawal of Associated Counsel on 8 November 2020. Attorneys Langhofer and Basile took over.

On 9 November 2020, Alexander Kolodin 030826, Christopher Viskovic 035860, and Chris Ford 029437 filed a motion with Sue Becker (MO 64721) for a proposed Verified Complaint-in-intervention adding Laurie Aguilera into the law suit with the “Sharpie-gate” allegations.

On November 13, 2020, Langofer filed a “Notice of Partial Mootness” before Hon. Daniel Kiley, saying that since the close of the previous day’s hearing, the tabulation of the votes rendered unnecessary a ruling on presidential electors. Both cases were dismissed.

5. Supreme Court of Az, Kelli Ward v. Jackson et al. CV2020-015285, Maricopa County Superior Court; Hon. Randall Warner, No. CV-20-0343-AP/EL Arizona Supreme Court, Case filed 11/24/20, decision from Supreme Court filed 12/08/2020. Attorneys were Dennis and Jack Wilenchik and Lee Miller SBN 012530.

The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court because there was no evidence of misconduct or illegal votes or fraud or a high error rate. In fact the lower court judge had gone out of his way, some say illegally, to allow the plaintiffs to examine 1,626 duplicated ballots only to find nothing. The tiny percentage of errors showed no fraud of any kind. A petition has now been filed by Jack Wilenchik to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case.

6. Stevenson et al v. Ducey et al, CV2020-096490, Maricopa Superior Court, December 4, 2020, Attorney Davis Spilsbury, filed a Petition for Election Contest on behalf of an alleged group called “Arizona Election Integrity Association” to vacate the presidential election result because of the absentee ballot error rate. They claimed that defendants so mismanaged the election process that no one can have faith in it. Out of state attorneys with pro hac vice applications filed include Erick G. Kaardal, No. 1035141* Special Counsel to Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, William F. Mohrman, 168816* Gregory Erickson 0276522* Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota. This suit presented one of the more bizarre claims: that unidentified grant money was distributed to direct the actions of election officials by some “shadow government” orchestrated by Mark Zuckerberg, that there was an unusually large number of absentee ballots and that there was outreach to the elderly and historically disenfranchised populations. It was also alleged that some anonymous unknown government data (not the same “shadow government” apparently) said the real difference between candidates was 300,000. The case was voluntarily dismissed on 12/7/2020.

7. Bowyer et al v. Ducey et al, Judge Diane J Humetewa, Federal District court, 2020-cv – 2321. Filed 12/02/20. Attorneys are: Alexander Michael Kolodin, Christopher Alfredo Viskovic. Out of state attorneys are Brandon Johnson, Emily P. Newman, Sidney Katherine Powell of Sidney Powell PC in Dallas, TX; Howard Kleinhenbdler, New York, NY; Julia Zuszua Haller, Washington, DC; L Lin Wood, Atlanta, GA. The case was dismissed on 12/9/2020. Interestingly the Snell and Wilmer attorneys are now on the side of the defense.

“This case is an attempt to undermine our confidence in the (election) system with no basis in law or fact,” Justin Nelson of the defense said. “They are using the federal court system in an attempt to undermine the rule of law and obtain breathtaking, startling and unprecedented relief to overturn the will of the people.”

Like those filed before, the lawsuit is filled with baseless claims from anonymous sources and expert witnesses with no expertise. It offers no facts or first-hand knowledge. Some of the more bizarre allegations are that Venezuela, Iran, and China rigged the election through voting machines, a former military intelligence analyst known as Spider rigged it, and some unfathomable data analysis from an unknown source proved this. This suit, like the others, is an attempt to use Arizona courts to attack democracy, to pummel our federal and Arizona state Constitution, and the rule of law, all in violation of lawyers’ oath of admission. This suit is so absurd it is a parody of pleading. It claims that the Arizona’s Secretary of State and Governor conspired with various domestic and international actors to manipulate Arizona’s 2020 General Election. With 300 pages of attachments based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections, the suit has not a shred of legally admissible evidence. The suit violates litigation 101 by not even alleging that the named defendants did anything in violation of law. Their conclusions, all drawn from unreliable or unidentified sources, are pure fiction; for example, one anonymous witness blames Hugo Chavez, former President of Venezuela, now dead 7 years.

The judge dismissed the case on lack of standing, lack of case or controversy, the abstention doctrine, 11tth amendment immunity, laches, mootness, and failure to state a claim. In spite of that, attorney Kolodon has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

All twenty-one lawyers involved have violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct. Please note that those from out of state are subject to Arizona rules when practicing in AZ. The violations include:

1. Judges, opposing counsel, and observers have repeatedly pointed out that these cases have absolutely no merit and are completely frivolous. Bringing such claims, for some of the attorneys not once or twice (Dennis Wilenchik, Lee Miller, Langhofer, Basile, Becker) or three times (Jack Wilenchik, Viskovic) but five times (Kolodon), violates ER 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions.

Attorney Langhofer was chastised by the court for not divulging pertinent facts to the court including that his “expert witness” was in fact his business partner. This violates ER 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal. Such behavior is also in violation of ER 3.4(f) (1). In all of the cases, the offered evidence was found to be false, and there is not much doubt the attorneys knew that which is also in violation of ER 3.3. This claim is especially egregious in the case of Lee Miller, who knew full well that there was no merit to the claim as the Arizona procedure was developed under him when he worked in the Secretary of State’s office. Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes et al. CV2020-014553.

2. Those who are partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers share full responsibility for these violations. ER 5.1

3. However, those subordinate lawyers cannot lay all the blame on their supervisors be because there is no arguable question of professional duty in these cases. ER 5.2

4. Those lawyers who practiced in AZ under pro hace vice applications also must be held responsible under ER 8.5 and must be barred from ever being granted a pro hace vice application in the future.

Conclusion:

To be an attorney is a privilege, not a right. To retain the privilege, we must abide by a code of ethics. These twenty-one attorneys did not do so. We ask for a thorough and complete ethics investigation into their conduct and that appropriate action be taken based upon that investigation.

Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Post
Bob McWhirter
Roxana Bacon
Brendan Mahoney
Gail Gianasi Natale
Amelia Craig Cramer
Victor Aronow

[admin]

Arizona Republican Party Chair Urges Trump Treason Via Martial Law
by Jason Easley
PoliticusUSA
DEC 20TH, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward urged Donald Trump to impose martial law and overturn the election.

Ward tweeted:

Dr. Kelli Ward @Kelliwardaz
Mr. President @realDonaldTrump - we are with you in #Arizona. We are working every avenue to stop this coup & to stop our Republic from crumbing. Patriots are united. Those who are against us are exposing themselves. #Liberty & #freedom are on the line. #CrossTheRubicon @GenFlynn

When Trump supporters suggest that he cross the rubicon, they are urging him to violate the constitution and commit at minimum sedition, which could be viewed as treason by overturning the election.

The fact that there are so many Americans who are willing to end our democracy to keep one man in power shows that the threat to democracy will not end with Trump.

The odds of the Republican Party going back to normal with non-Trump candidates running for president in 2024 are getting close to zero with each passing day. The bar for future Republican candidates is being set by Trump at destroying democracy.

Donald Trump was the symptom and not the disease. Removing Trump isn’t going to fix the Republican Party.

The GOP is walking down a path that will make it a domestic threat to America’s system of governance. Trump has opened the door to authoritarianism, and millions of his supporters are willing to walk through and end democracy in the United States.

Jason Easley
Mr. Easley is the founder/managing editor, who is White House Press Pool, and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.


******************************

Arizona GOP Chair Calls for Trump to 'Cross the Rubicon' in Tweet Shared by Michael Flynn
by Jason Lemon
Newsweek
12/20/20 AT 2:07 PM EST

Kelli Ward, the chair of Arizona's Republican Party, urged President Donald Trump to "cross the Rubicon" in a Saturday tweet, referencing the historical act by Julius Caesar which led to the Roman civil war and Caesar becoming a dictator. Retired General Michael Flynn, who was recently pardoned by Trump, shared Ward's tweet Sunday.

Trump and his supporters have baselessly claimed that President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 election due to widespread voter fraud. There is no evidence to support these allegations, and state and federal judges have consistently dismissed or rejected dozens of lawsuits filed by the president and his supporters. Even judges appointed by Trump have pointed out that his attorneys have not provided evidence to back their claims. But many Republicans are still hoping the president will successfully overturn the election results.

"Mr. President @realDonaldTrump - we are with you in #Arizona. We are working every avenue to stop this coup & to stop our Republic from crumbing. Patriots are united. Those who are against us are exposing themselves. #Liberty & #freedom are on the line. #CrossTheRubicon @GenFlynn," Ward tweeted.

Flynn later retweeted Ward, writing: ".@kelliwardaz has a great feel for the people of Arizona and America. She continues to #FightForTrump With courage and conviction."

Trump pardoned Flynn, who briefly served as his national security adviser at the outset of 2017, in late November. The retired general had twice pleaded guilty to charges that he had lied to the FBI regarding conversations he'd had with a top Russian diplomat. But in January, Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and the Justice Department announced in May that it would drop all the charges against Flynn. This decision led to significant criticism, as many saw the move as resulting from presidential pressure. Trump then pardoned Flynn on November 26.

******************************

The Arizona GOP should fight ... to get rid of Chairwoman Kelli Ward
Opinion: The Arizona GOP has gone too far in suggesting a bloody overturn of the presidential election. Republicans must send leader Kelli Ward packing.
by Elvia Díaz
Arizona Republic
Dec. 8, 2020


Kelli Ward, Arizona Republican Party Chair, speaks during a Keep America Great Rally at Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix, Ariz. on Feb. 19, 2020 Cheryl Evans/The Republic

Just when you think the Arizona Republican Party can’t get any crazier comes a call to arms to defend its election fraud conspiracy fantasies.

No joke, folks.

The GOP, which boasts 1.3 million Arizona registered members, just went full blown fanatic, asking people whether they’re willing to die to overturn the presidential election results and keep Donald Trump at the White House.

In other words, Arizona’s GOP is willing and ready for civil war. Are you? That’s what they’re asking, and it can’t be dismissed as just heated rhetoric from a fringe segment of the population.

These people are the faces and voices of mainstream politics in mainstream America. Their call to arms came late Monday from the official Twitter account of the state Republican Party, where it shared a post from Ali Alexander, an activist with an organization called “Stop the Steal.”

"I am willing to give my life for this fight," wrote Alexander about election protests that have gone nowhere in the legal system.

The GOP shared it with a question. "He is. Are you?”

Arizona Republican Party
@AZGOP
He is. Are you?

Ali #StopTheSteal @ali
I am willing to give my life for this fight.
10:52 PM Dec 7, 2020

Yes, Republicans should get ready to fight — but not to overturn a legitimate election. They should immediately get to work to get rid of state GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward.

This has gone way too far.

C'mon, Republicans. You're better than this. For the love of America, send Ward packing along with Trump.

Elvia Díaz is an editorial columnist for The Republic and azcentral. Reach her at 602-444-8606 or elvia.diaz@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter, @elviadiaz1.

[admin]

Fact Check: Certification Of Pennsylvania Presidential Vote Is NOT In Error -- Analysis That 202,377 More Ballots Were Counted Than Voters Who Voted Uses Partial Numbers
by Dana Ford
leadstories.com
Dec 29, 2020


Partial Data

Is the certification of the Pennsylvania presidential vote premature and in error, based on an analysis that claims 202,377 more ballots were counted than there were voters who voted? No, that's not true: The analysis, released by a handful of state Republican lawmakers, was based on partial data, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS). The number of voters used by the lawmakers did not include completed totals from several major counties. The agency defended its certification, stating: "State and federal judges have sifted through hundreds of pages of unsubstantiated and false allegations and found no evidence of fraud or illegal voting."

The claim appeared in a Twitter post (archived here) published by State Rep. Russ Diamond on December 28, 2020. The post included two screenshots -- one of a chart that showed a purported "voter deficit" in Pennsylvania and one of a statement released by Republican lawmakers, alleging "troubling discrepancies" in the 2020 election. Diamond's post read:

Pa Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add Up, Certification Of Presidential Results Premature and In Error

This is what the post looked like on Twitter at the time of writing:


(Source: Twitter screenshot taken on Tue Dec 29 17:27:29 2020 UTC)

Russ Diamond
@russdiamond
Pa Lawmakers: Numbers Don't Add up,
Certification Of Presidential Results Premature and In Error
PENNSYLVANIA VOTER DEFICIT - 2020 GENERAL ELECTION
Total Ballots Cast (County Data) / Total Votes Counted in Presidential Race (County Data) / SURE System Total Voters Who Voted 11/3/2020 (SURE Data)
County Data: 6,962,607 / County Data: 6,931,060 / 6,760,230
SURE Data: -6,760,230 / SURE Data: -6,760,230
202,377 more ballots cast than voters who voted / 170,830 more ballots cast than voters who voted
Note: Three small rural counties have not fully posted results online and their results were included as reported
10:18 AM - Dec 28, 2020

The full text of the lawmakers' statement can be found on Diamond's website.

PA Lawmakers: Numbers Don’t Add Up, Certification of Presidential Results Premature and In Error
DEC. 28, 2020

HARRISBURG – A group of state lawmakers performing extensive analysis of election data today revealed troubling discrepancies between the numbers of total votes counted and total number of voters who voted in the 2020 General Election, and as a result are questioning how the results of the presidential election could possibly have been certified by Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and Governor Tom Wolf. These findings are in addition to prior concerns regarding actions by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Secretary, and others impacting the conduct of the election.

A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States. On November 24, 2020, Boockvar certified election results, and Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, stating that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.

The lawmakers issued the following statement in response to their findings:

“We were already concerned with the actions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Executive branch, and election officials in certain counties contravening and undermining the Pennsylvania Election Code by eliminating signature verification, postmarks, and due dates while allowing the proliferation of drop boxes with questionable security measures and the unauthorized curing of ballots, as well as the questionable treatment of poll watchers, all of which created wholesale opportunities for irregularities in the 2020 presidential election.”

“However, we are now seeing discrepancies on the retail level which raise even more troubling questions regarding irregularities in the election returns. These findings call into question the accuracy of the SURE system, consistency in the application of the Pennsylvania Election Code from county to county, and the competency of those charged with oversight of elections in our Commonwealth.

“These numbers just don’t add up, and the alleged certification of Pennsylvania’s presidential election results was absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in error.”

State Rep. Frank Ryan (R-Lebanon) indicated that state legislators sponsoring and participating in this analysis were himself and Reps. Russ Diamond (R-Lebanon), Dave Zimmerman (R-Lancaster), Barb Gleim (R-Cumberland), Stephanie Borowicz (R-Centre/Clinton), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Paul Schemel (R-Franklin), Dawn Keefer (R-York/Cumberland), Eric Nelson (R-Westmoreland), Mike Jones (R-York), Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin), David Maloney (R-Berks), David Rowe (R-Snyder/Union), Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Crawford/Forest), Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), Jim Cox (R-Berks/Lancaster) and Brett Miller (R-Lancaster).

Rep. Frank Ryan
101st Legislative District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives

It was supported by State Rep. Frank Ryan and by a dozen or so other Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania. Collectively, they alleged "troubling discrepancies between the numbers of total votes counted and total number of voters who voted." The lawmakers' analysis reportedly relied on data from the SURE system, which is the statewide database used by county officials to maintain data related to elections and voters. Their statement read:

A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States.

Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes, according to official state data.

Lead Stories reached out to the Pennsylvania DOS to comment on the lawmakers' claims. The agency responded with a lengthy statement that rejected their analysis, saying it displayed a lack of election-related knowledge and was based on incomplete information. The statement opened:

In [Monday's] release, Rep. Ryan and others rehash, with the same lack of evidence and the same absence of supporting documentation, repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories regarding the November 3 election. State and federal judges have sifted through hundreds of pages of unsubstantiated and false allegations and found no evidence of fraud or illegal voting.

Now, the legislators have given us another perfect example of the dangers of uninformed, lay analysis combined with a basic lack of election administration knowledge.

It continued:

We are unclear as to what data the legislators used for this most recent 'analysis.' But the only way to determine the number of voters who voted in November from the SURE system is through the vote histories. At this time, there are still a few counties that have not completed uploading their vote histories to the SURE system. These counties, which include Philadelphia, Allegheny, Butler and Cambria, would account for a significant number of voters. The numbers certified by the counties, not the uploading of voter histories into the SURE system, determines the ultimate certification of an election by the secretary.

Philadelphia County Population (2019): 1.584 million


Allegheny County Population (2019): 1.216 million


Butler County Population (2019): 187,853


Cambria County Population (2019): 130,192

TOTAL: 3.1 MILLION

The statement concluded:

To put it simply, this so-called analysis was based on incomplete data.

Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, a Democrat, similarly dismissed the lawmakers' claims, describing the group as a "fringe minority" and their analysis as a "truly bizarre, hot mess." He wrote on Twitter:

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
Let's be absolutely clear: This is 100% false. This is a fringe minority of PAGOP (15% of REPUBLICAN representatives) pitching a truly bizarre, hot mess.
Their own caucus rejects it, as of this writing not one single PA senator subscribes to this hot mess.
thank u next

Donald J. Trump @realD...
"A group of Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania say 200,000 more votes were counted in the 2020 Election than voters (100% went to Biden). State Representative Frank Ryan said they found troubling discrepancies after an analysis of Election Day data."
@FoxNews This is far ...
!This claim about election fraud is disputed

7:45 AM - Dec 29, 2020 from Braddock PA

Lead Stories reached out to the offices of Reps. Ryan and Diamond to comment on what the Pennsylvania DOS said. We will update this story, as needed, if we receive a response.

The Pennsylvania DOS certified the presidential election results on November 24, 2020.

Dana Ford is an Atlanta-based reporter and editor. She previously worked as a senior editor at Atlanta Magazine Custom Media and as a writer/ editor for CNN Digital. Ford has more than a decade of news experience, including several years spent working in Latin America.