Tag: law

 There is no more doubt that President Trump is going to take the battle to the fraudsters in the aftermath of today’s press conference.

“We will not back down, we won’t be intimidated, President Trump will not be intimidated. You the American people should not be intimidated… this is not a court of law, we will get there, and we have time, and we have constitutional provisions that will step in when we show the corruption and the irredeemably challenged and overturned votes that are absolutely corrupt.”

-Jenna Ellis, Senior Legal Advisor to the Trump Campaign

The Nine Key Points detailed today:

1. Observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened. Giuliani said that many mail-in ballots were opened without observers being able to check that they were properly signed, a key protection against fraud. Those votes, he said, were “null and void,” especially where the envelopes had been discarded, making recounts useless.

2. Allegedly unequal application of the law in Democratic counties. In Pennsylvania, whose state supreme court created new, relaxed voting rules before the election, Giuliani alleged that absentee voters in Democratic counties were allowed to “cure” defects in their ballots, while voters in Republican counties, which obeyed the state law as written, were not.

3. Voters allegedly arrived at the polls to discover other people had voted for them. Giuliani said that many provisional ballots cast in Pittsburgh were submitted by people who showed up to vote in person, only to be told that they had voted already. He alleged that Democrats had filled out absentee ballots for other people, hoping they would not show up.

4. Election officials were allegedly told not to look for defects in ballots, and to backdate ballots. Giuliani cited an affidavit from an official who swore she was told not to exclude absentee ballots for defects, and to backdate ballots so they would not appear to have been received after Election Day, to avoid a Supreme Court order to sequester those ballots.

5. Ballots casting votes for Joe Biden and no other candidates were allegedly run several times through machines. Giuliani said that there were 60 witnesses in Michigan who would attest to ballots being “produced” quickly and counted twice or thrice. He said that a minimum of 60,000 ballots, and a maximum of 100,000 ballots, were allegedly affected.

6. Absentee ballots were accepted in Wisconsin without being applied for first. Giuliani noted that Wisconsin state law was stricter regarding absentee ballots than most other states are, yet alleged that 60,000 absentee ballots were counted in the Milwaukee area, and 40,000 in the Madison area, without having been applied for properly by the voters who cast them.

7. There were allegedly “overvotes,” with some precincts allegedly recording more voters than residents, among other problems. Giuliani said there was an unusually large number of overvotes in precincts in Michigan and in Wisconsin, which he alleged was the reason that Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers had refused to certify the results there this week. He also alleged that there were some out-of-state voters in Georgia, and people who had cast votes twice there.

8. Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros. Sidney Powell argued that U.S. votes were being counted overseas, and that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were controlled by foreign interests, manipulating algorithms to change the results. Powell noted specifically that Smartmatic’s owners included two Venezuelan nationals, whom she alleged had ties to the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. The legal team alleged that there were statistical anomalies, such as huge batches of votes for Biden, that could not be explained except as manipulation — which, they alleged, happened in the wee hours of the morning as vote-counting had stalled. (The companies have disputed these allegations vigorously.)

9. The Constitution provides a process for electing a president if the vote is corrupted. Jenna Ellis argued that the media, had usurped the power to declare the winner of the election. She made the point, citing Federalist No. 68, that the constitutional process of selecting a president had procedural safeguards against corruption and foreign influence. Giuliani said that the campaign believed that enough votes were flawed — more than double the margins between Biden and Trump in key states — that the president had a path to victory.

As Giuliani himself said, anyone who says there is “no evidence” of mass voter fraud is lying. 

UPDATE: We will not back down, but Tucker Carlson appears to have cucked.

Tucker Carlson says Trump campaign unwilling to provide evidence to back their claims.

Forget the legal definitions of evidence. These people are not even speaking English correctly. 

 Biden aides are threatening to hold their breath or something if the Trump campaign, the GSA, the State election certifiers, and the State electors don’t give into the media’s demoralization campaign:

Joe Biden’s aides on Sunday demanded that their boss receive intelligence briefings as soon as this week. With President Donald Trump refusing to concede, the Democrat remains frozen out of the White House.

Biden’s transition team complained last week that General Services Administration chief Emily Murphy has not yet broken ranks with Trump and is refusing to sign off on Biden as the winner of this month’s presidential election. Until Murphy ascertains Biden’s apparent victory, the former vice president will not receive intelligence and security briefings.

Biden not going to get them this week. Or next week. Or, for that matter, next year. Because Biden didn’t win.

 Karl the Martian asks about the latest twist in the Patreon CA court cast:

complex litigation hype train – stronger or weaker than our god emperor’s chances of being president?

It’s not so much weaker as nonexistent. What he’s referring to here is yesterday’s court-approved request for complex litigation made by Patreon back in May. This was a cheap legal stunt intended to increase filing fees for the Bears, which also provided the Bears with a third breach of contract claim in their arbitrations. Because the case isn’t actually complex and complex status wouldn’t serve to do anything it hasn’t already accomplished, Patreon agreed to an order that was filed to designate the case as non-complex more than a month ago, as the court records show.

2020-10-07     FEE PAID ON: STIPULATION & ORDER TO DESIGNATE CASE AS NON-COMPLEX (TRANSACTION ID # 100113383)

As far as I have heard, no one on either side understands how this happened or what’s going on yet. My guess is that this was just an administrative error in which someone failed to notice the original request had already been revoked.

 Alex Macris contemplates how election fraud might be litigated with A Deep Dive into Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York:

Let’s summarize what we’ve learned:

• The Federal Courts do have jurisdiction to resolve claims of state and city ballot fraud that causes ballot dilution, even in Presidential elections.
• The Federal Courts can order a new election if necessary to address fraud, even in Presidential elections
• The Trump campaign will need to prove (a) specific acts of misconduct (b) involving willful or knowing ballot fraud (c) by state officials or private persons acting with state officials (d) that changed the outcome of the election.
• The Trump campaign can use expert testimony and statistical evidence to prove its case, but it needs some direct evidence too. (Remember that in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is considered direct evidence.)

Does the Trump team have the facts on its side to meet (a)-(d)? I don’t know. No one does yet. We’ll find out tomorrow when we see what his legal team files. It’s going to be one hell of a week.

But don’t take his conclusions at face value. Read the whole thing there and see if you agree with his legal reasoning in this regard. And if you disagree, take it up with him…. 

The reports about Hunter Biden’s hard drive are rapidly going from bad to worse for the Biden crime family:

Approximately one third of the explicit photos of minors in Hunter Biden’s laptop were of the same 14-year-old girl — who is one of his relatives, according a shocking new report. Not only were there inappropriate photos of the child on her own, but Hunter Biden was in some of them with her.

“A source close to the matter, though, who claims to have seen the images on Hunter’s laptop, told Revolver that about one-third of the images are of the same underage girl. Some of the images are topless, while in others she is shown in suggestive positions with Hunter himself,” Revolver News reports.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to another source who said the same thing.

It won’t surprise you to learn that /pol/ has already figured out who the girl is. And given that she’s attractive, there is no chance that the media is going to be able to keep a lid on the matter once the first pictures leak. 

Considering that Hunter Biden is known to have had an affair with his dead brother’s widow, it is readily apparent that the entire family has serious boundary issues.

 He’s going to need more of that Ukrainian cash when Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer gets through with him:

On behalf of Kyle Rittenhouse, I shall sue @JoeBiden & Biden/Harris Campaign for libel.

I am partisan in 20/20 supporting @realDonaldTrump.

I am non-partisan trial lawyer who aggressively pursues truth to achieve justice.

Put in your hearing aid, Joe. You will hear footsteps.

It’s good to see people aggressively nuking the “white supremacist” libel. 

A second timely ruling just dropped on Friday, and this one is most definitely not in Patreon’s favor. An August 14 decision by a US District Court judge has settled what had hitherto been the undefined “due date” of the new California law intended to prevent corporations from delaying and evading arbitrations, and it means that Patreon is in material default of every single one of the Bears’ 91 arbitrations. 
Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., No. C 19-07918 WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020)

The legislature expressly sought to avoid a “perverse incentive scheme” whereby ambiguity in the law allowed companies to delay adjudication, perhaps even affording them “an incentive to refuse to arbitrate claims . . . in the hope that the frustrated [employees and consumers] would simply abandon them.” Id. at 8 (quoting Brown v. Dillard’s, 430 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005)) (emphasis added).

Yet, this “perverse incentive scheme” remains a distinct possibility under defendants’ theory of the due date. At the hearing, defense counsel admitted that, in their view, if JAMS hypothetically granted a due date extension after defendants missed a first given due date, § 1281.97’s 30-day grace period would only begin after defendants missed the second due date (Dkt. No. 81 at 14). Under this view, the arbitrator could postpone time and again, delaying the 30-day grace period for as long as the arbitrator wished. This would subvert the whole point of the new law.

Finally, a similar action involving food delivery app Postmates illustrates how other arbitration providers have responded to the new California law. There, over ten thousand former and current Postmates drivers filed individual arbitration demands against Postmates with the American Arbitration Association on February 15, 2020, pursuant to the mandatory arbitration provisions in their contracts. The AAA notified Postmates of the filings and gave a payment due date of March 16. The AAA wrote that, subject to the newly enacted § 1281.97, “payment must be received by April 15, 2020 or the AAA may close the parties’ cases,” and that it would “not grant any extensions to this payment deadline.” Postmates, now owing over $4.6 million in initial filing fees, sought a TRO to enjoin the drivers from enforcing § 1281.97. The court denied Postmates’ request, finding, among other things, that payment of filing fees would not irreparably harm Postmates, and that the balances of equities favored the drivers, who “have an interest in having their claims heard in a timely matter.” Postmates Inc. v. 10,356 Individuals, No. CV 20-2783 PSG (JEMx), 2020 WL 1908302 at *4, 9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2020) (Judge Philip Gutierrez).

There, with Postmates owing over $4.6 million in filing fees for over ten thousand arbitrations, the court refused to temporarily suspend the due date and buy Postmates more time. Here, on the other hand, defendants owed little more than $15,000 across the eight disputes. The district court also echoed California’s legislature when it weighed the competing interests and found that the drivers’ prevailed. “[The drivers] have an interest in being permitted to pursue their wage and hour claims in arbitration, which is supposed to be a speedy and inexpensive alternative to litigation.” Id. at *8 (internal quotations omitted). This decision, along with the clear legislative intent to prevent delays in commencing arbitration, points towards a strict enforcement of the 30-day grace period that begins upon defendants’ receipt of invoice.

When AAA said payment was due by April 15 without extensions, else the arbitrators could close their case, the court enforced that deadline. This order agrees with AAA’s view of § 1281.97. Here, the JAMS invoices stated that payment was due upon receipt. It is true that JAMS, perhaps in order to keep the business, was willing to let payment slide for a few weeks, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was due and payable upon receipt. Defendants then had 30 days to pay or be in material breach, even if JAMS was willing to wait. Waiting is delay, and delay is exactly what the legislature sought to stop.

And it’s a very big one. Patreon’s core strategy from the start has been to try carving out an exception to the arbitrations it imposes upon all of its users in order to avoid paying the required arbitration fees. This strategy has uniformly failed, as evidenced by decisions by the arbitration company, the arbitrators, and even the Superior Court judge.

Now Patreon’s attempt to avoid permitting the arbitrators to decide if its practices are deceptive and in violation of California law or not has been comprehensively shot down by the highest relevant authority. This means that its legal strategy has been a complete and comprehensive failure, as any informed observer could have told them it would be back in December when they implemented it.

Nick Rekeita of the Lawstream analyzes the San Francisco Superior Court’s order denying Patreon’s request for a preliminary injunction. He’s sharp and well-informed, so even I will watch this video.

Mike Cernovich provides his analysis on Periscope.