DISPATCHES FROM THE MEMORY HOLE: Why a Liberal Reporter Saved a Ton of Headlines from Liberal Media Outlets Concerning the Electoral College .
Sydney Powell has filed her complaint alleging voter fraud in Georgia.. https://t.co/ly7R4J1Up0 — peace (@3peacefulheart) November 26, 2020 Sydney Powell has filed her long awaited complaint in Georgia alleging election fraud. You’ll find an unsigned version of the 104-page complaint here , Powell alleges in the complaint that election fraud occurred on behalf of Joe Biden in several different ways, as established by eye-witnesses and by expert statistical analysis, and that certain aspects of the voting system used renders the whole process untrustworthy.
Source: The Kracken Unleashed
The PDF of the complaint is here. You decide.
There are some comments at Vox Popoli. I take most of what Vox Day writes with enough grains of salt to worry my cardiologist. But he cites some lawyers here
So, here are my few observations as an attorney with decades’ in federal court:
1. In early October, 2020, a federal district judge in this same district (Northern District of Georgia) ruled after several years of litigation that the Dominion software used to monitor this election has substantial issues and it will affect an election. The Plaintiffs were Democrats who filed suit in response to the 2016 election. They sought an order forcing Georgia to use different software. They conducted discovery and hearings over years, including 3 days of expert testimony about how these very voting machines work. The court ultimately denied the request because it was simply too late to change the voting machines since the election at that time was roughly a month away. New cases are supposed to be assigned to judges randomly but I would not be surprised if this case were given to that particular judge since she spent so much time reviewing the litigation and conducting evidentiary hearings. Her findings of fact could be incorporated into this hearing under the legal theory of res judicata.
5. One area where plaintiffs do a good job is in pointing out the number of votes affected by the alleged fraud. One reason this is crucial is that Biden’s certified margin of victory in Georgia was only about 12,000 votes. And the complaint does a good job of laying out substantial procedural and constitutional irregularities with roughly 96,000 votes and further problems with additional votes. The problematic votes far outnumber Biden’s margin of victory, which is hugely significant. Put another way, if Biden wins by 500,000 and they claim that there are problems with 100,000 votes, even if those 100,000 votes are gone, Biden still wins. If the problem votes are gone, Biden’s victory may be gone as well. The complaint does a good job of pointing out not just the alleged problems but the number of votes affected by those problems.
6. What now? The plaintiffs are asking for an evidentiary hearing. That would allow them to present evidence in the form of witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits that would support their claim. Because it is a civil case, they only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, they only have to prove that it was more likely than not that there was fraud and that the fraud influenced the election. They do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court may refuse an evidentiary hearing, in which case Plaintiffs would appeal and argue that they should be given hearing. Given the evidence laid out, I expect that the court will at least order an evidentiary hearing that will be conducted on an expedited scale. (it helps that there’s an evidentiary hearing set in Nevada). After the evidentiary hearing, the court can grant their request, which would be to de-certify the election and force a manual re-count/audit overseen by independent auditors to verify each vote. Or the court could deny it. Realistically this case is likely to be appealed, which is one reason that the District (trial) court is likely to hold an evidentiary hearing. Because an appeal is almost certain no matter who wins the case, the judge’s legal decision in this case is likely not nearly as important as the judge’s factual decisions. The judge’s factual decisions will likely be relied upon by appellate judges even if they disagree with the judge’s legal conclusions. If there is an evidentiary hearing, pay careful attention to the judge’s factual findings, especially as described below.
- This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they’ve grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I’ve not even completed reading it, I’m taking it slow.
- It’s now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she’s representing here, she’s representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight. Like with Roger Stone, she’s outside the system.
- This suit is a big reason why General Flynn was pardoned this week. Now, the corrupt Flynn trial judge can’t waste time or resources by demanding Powell file extra briefs or come to court and distract her from this. That great Dem delay tactic has been neutralized; Powell is all in on this.
- Page 9, Paragraph 14. Holy shit.
- For about 7 days now, the SJW defense rhetoric I’ve heard was, in part, “Oh yeah? When they going to prove this in court? Put up or shut up.” Now, after Rudy’s hearings yesterday and Powell’s filing last night, they’ve put up—-they put it on the line. Big time.
- The Democratic party lawyers just shit their pants. Biden did as well, but he does that every morning. Their Thanksgiving is officially ruined; they are all going to be working all holiday weekend to file a response.
President Trump’s pardon not only ends any injustice to Flynn, but it restores the proper balance to the separation of powers.
Of course, Trump’s critics leapt immediately to the attack. House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) said Flynn had chosen “loyalty to Trump over loyalty to his country” and Trump’s decision was intended to insulate himself from criminal investigation. He called that a “corruption of the Framer’s intent” in giving the president broad pardon powers. “It’s no surprise that Trump would go out just as he came in — crooked to the end,” Schiff said. House Judiciary chairman Jerrold R. Nadler (D., N.Y.) called the pardon “undeserved, unprincipled, and one more stain on President Trump’s rapidly diminishing legacy.”
Source: Implications of the Flynn Pardon
According to president-elect Joe Biden “If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying [clean energy] jobs in the United States that will grow a stronger, more inclusive middle class enjoyed by communities across the country, not just in cities along the coasts.” Is that possibly true?
(Don Boudreaux) Tweet On this Thanksgiving Day I raise a glass also to Ivor Cummins for his tireless production of and clear, data-rich videos that are meant to cure Covid Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, this terrible disease – CDS-20 – continues to surge in many places around the world, including in the United States.
Source: Thankful for Ivor Cummins
*I was going to write a post, I was. Only I’m trying to do like three things at once, yes, mostly writing related, and kept getting pulled away. It took me 4 hours to finish the one for MGC. So, I’m sorry, but you get a blast from the past.
3- Our friends and neighbors who believe in a deterministic future and the inevitable arrow of history? Their world is getting jackhammered. Worse, their ways of reacting that always served them well are doing worse than backfiring. They’re not doing anything. Worse, they’re used to being in power, and in having “privilege” for having “the correct opinions.” That’s not really paying off anymore. Even in publishing where the establishment abides, there’s less and less cheese to go around, which means the other rats are turning on you.
I’m not saying you should pity them. Oh, heck, you should, yes, but considering what has gone on in the past, most of us aren’t that saintly.
Just understand the crazy stuff they do and say is because they lost their moorings, not because “they were always inherently bad people.” (Though some, of course, were. People will be people.) They’re really really scared, and scared people do crazy stuff.
This Thanksgiving post has been an annual tradition at CD and I feature a slightly revised version again this year! Like in previous years, most of you probably didn’t call your local supermarket ahead of time and order a Thanksgiving turkey this year.
Leftists, having placed pro-criminal prosecutors across America, are now doing the same with judges. Criminals will not like what’s coming. At Power Line , Paul Mirengoff took note of the fact that George Soros, having managed to place leftist prosecutors throughout America, none of whom have the slightest interest in prosecuting crime, has now moved on to placing leftist judges in courtrooms, just in case a prosecutor was unable to keep a criminal out of court: In Maryland, it appears from the Washington Post’s account that most, if not all, of the victorious outsiders are pro-criminal defendant and sympathetic to the BLM critique of the judicial system.
What leftists don’t realize is that what they’re doing is also a disaster for criminals. As many have said, our modern criminal justice system was set up not just to protect ordinary people from criminals but to protect criminals from ordinary people. Before we had a criminal justice system, complete with police, courtrooms, and prisons, we had vigilantism at the front end, because there were no police, and extreme tortures at the back end of the system, because there were no prisons.
When police arrest bad guys, one of the things they are doing is protecting them from angry people in the community. These people are not just the direct victims but the community at large. People who are trying to live normal lives cannot tolerate rampant crime. If there is no government enforcement, they will become the enforcers. Vigilantes invariably administer rough justice, and it’s usually fatal. The person they grab (and they’re not above grabbing the wrong person), will be beaten to death, hanged, shot, set on fire, or whatever else the mob finds most expedient. We read stories about these things about Latin America and Africa. If leftists keep destroying the front end of our criminal justice system — the police — we’re going to read about it here too.
Doctors should follow the evidence for promising therapies. Instead they demand certainty.
The best is the enemy of the better.