Rep. Pascrell Jr. Seeks To Disbar giuliani And 22 Other trump Lawyers

So Americans are no longer allowed to bring up lawsuits or potential lawsuits. I don't agree with Giuliani and all the lawsuits, however lawmakers should not have the authority to disbar attorneys because of politics.
Anybody can file a complaint with the state bar, or federal court.
 
So Americans are no longer allowed to bring up lawsuits or potential lawsuits. I don't agree with Giuliani and all the lawsuits, however lawmakers should not have the authority to disbar attorneys because of politics.

They don't really. This is the Nazi mentality of the left sending a message to one and all about trying to look into this election.
 
I don't know how it is in other places, but over here they provide you with a black pen. Usually it's chained to the table, but this year they handed you the pen and told you to keep it.

There you go, with your in-person voting again. Lots of people want to use the safety and convenience of voting by mail.

I'm sure you're ordered stuff from Amazon, or e-Bay, or shopped online. How would you like someone insisting you go to the store in person instead.
 
A lot of these are very relative things. Judges haven't accepted Trump's definition of "reasonable oversight". As for signature verification, that too is highly subjective and is far more likely to disenfranchise a legitimate voter than to find actual voter fraud.

If a voter did nothing wrong, their vote should count unless proven otherwise.

Checking signatures is the only possible way of verifying a legitimate vote. If they're too lazy to come to the polls to vote, then to hell with them. If your signature doesn't reasonably match, then it should get thrown out.
 
Checking signatures is the only possible way of verifying a legitimate vote. If they're too lazy to come to the polls to vote, then to hell with them. If your signature doesn't reasonably match, then it should get thrown out.
Checking signatures is also a great way to toss out ballots from perfectly valid voters. Is that what you want?

Reasonably is a subjective term. You really want people making subjective evaluations as to whether your vote should count?
 
If they're too lazy to come to the polls to vote, then to hell with them. If your signature doesn't reasonably match, then it should get thrown out.
Signatures change as people get older. They may be suffering from anything from arthritis to Parkinson's.
That's no reason to force them to stand in line for hours in order to vote in person.
 
These lawsuits are being defended by the secretary of state, and election boards, and any other controlling body. They are state lawyers, already paid by the state. Unless the state contracts with private attorneys, there are no attorneys fees to collect. They're on the clock.
So, because these are government lawyers, they are not entitled to attorney fees on behalf of the state?

You are damn clueless.

Actually that's sometimes put into state or federal law (depending on the agency) that asking for legal fees would stifle the individual from filing lawsuits.


The general rule in this country, the so-called "American Rule" is that each party must pay its own attorney's fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). There are, however, numerous federal statutes providing for attorney fee awards where the United States or a federal agency or official is a party. The most generally applicable statute authorizing attorney's fees awards against the United States is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which makes the federal government liable for fees where:

(1) any other party would be liable under common law or under the terms of any federal statute which specifically provides for such an award, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); or
(2) in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort) brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1).

In any suit brought against a defendant, to the extent that a defendant has met the standards set forth under section 11112(a) of this titleand the defendant substantially prevails, the court shall, at the conclusion of the action, award to a substantially prevailing party defending against any such claim the cost of the suit attributable to such claim, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, if the claim, or the claimant’s conduct during the litigation of the claim, was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith. For the purposes of this section, a defendant shall not be considered to have substantially prevailed when the plaintiff obtains an award for damages or permanent injunctive or declaratory relief.
(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 413, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3787.)

Want me to go get the state law too?
 
There you go, with your in-person voting again. Lots of people want to use the safety and convenience of voting by mail.

I'm sure you're ordered stuff from Amazon, or e-Bay, or shopped online. How would you like someone insisting you go to the store in person instead.

I wouldn't like it because we have no stores in the immediate area. Our grocery store has order online, and I go to the store to shop. I go to my drug store without a problem. Our voting location, like I'm sure most, took health precautions. Everybody was six feet apart. You couldn't approach the table to sign in until the person in front of you left the table. The voting tables were spaced out 10 feet from each other. They had bathrooms and also hand sanitizer all over the place.
 
So Americans are no longer allowed to bring up lawsuits or potential lawsuits. I don't agree with Giuliani and all the lawsuits, however lawmakers should not have the authority to disbar attorneys because of politics.
Anybody can file a complaint with the state bar, or federal court.

Let's hope it is dismissed, it seems punitive and vindictive.
 
If they're too lazy to come to the polls to vote, then to hell with them. If your signature doesn't reasonably match, then it should get thrown out.
Signatures change as people get older. They may be suffering from anything from arthritis to Parkinson's.
That's no reason to force them to stand in line for hours in order to vote in person.

Sure there is a reason, and that is to verify who they are. You go to the polls, present a valid ID, sign in front of the poll worker, and if there are any problems, they will address you with them.

My father had some work done on his forearm some years ago. While he was healing, he had a problem writing. When he went to vote, they questioned his identification because his signature was not the same. He had to fill out a form and a provisional ballot to vote. He even showed them his surgical scar. That's the way you handle a situation like that because I'm sure they've seen it thousands of times.

What you are suggesting is that people mail in votes fraudulently, sign somebody else's name, and the poll worker should just assume you are getting older? Imagine the fraud that would create.
 
Checking signatures is also a great way to toss out ballots from perfectly valid voters. Is that what you want?

Reasonably is a subjective term. You really want people making subjective evaluations as to whether your vote should count?

You want them ignoring fraud votes?

My ballot counted, why should we make provisions for people who didn't do what I did to make sure my vote counted?
 
I don't know how it is in other places, but over here they provide you with a black pen. Usually it's chained to the table, but this year they handed you the pen and told you to keep it.

There you go, with your in-person voting again. Lots of people want to use the safety and convenience of voting by mail.

I'm sure you're ordered stuff from Amazon, or e-Bay, or shopped online. How would you like someone insisting you go to the store in person instead.

I don't like to order from Amazon, if there is a store, especially a locally owned store, that has the product, I'll buy it from them and I'd be willing to pay more. We all need to support our local businesses.
 

The general rule in this country, the so-called "American Rule" is that each party must pay its own attorney's fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). There are, however, numerous federal statutes providing for attorney fee awards where the United States or a federal agency or official is a party. The most generally applicable statute authorizing attorney's fees awards against the United States is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which makes the federal government liable for fees where:

(1) any other party would be liable under common law or under the terms of any federal statute which specifically provides for such an award, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); or
(2) in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort) brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1).
The above is DOJ policy, applying to federal agencies. They are NOT allowed to seek legal fees.


In any suit brought against a defendant, to the extent that a defendant has met the standards set forth under section 11112(a) of this titleand the defendant substantially prevails, the court shall, at the conclusion of the action, award to a substantially prevailing party defending against any such claim the cost of the suit attributable to such claim, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, if the claim, or the claimant’s conduct during the litigation of the claim, was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith. For the purposes of this section, a defendant shall not be considered to have substantially prevailed when the plaintiff obtains an award for damages or permanent injunctive or declaratory relief.
(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 413, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3787.)

Want me to go get the state law too?

That doesn't apply to the federal government.
See DOJ policy above,
 
I'm sure you're ordered stuff from Amazon, or e-Bay, or shopped online. How would you like someone insisting you go to the store in person instead.
I wouldn't like it because we have no stores in the immediate area.
Many places have no polling places in the immediate area either.

The US Eliminated Nearly 21,000 Election Day Polling ... - Vice
www.vice.com › Home › News

Oct 22, 2020 — Exclusive VICE News analysis shows a 20% cut in election locations ... “Closing this many polling places at such a vast scale really does affect ...
 
Many places have no polling places in the immediate area either.

That's no reason to set up an election that's more easily compromised. If you live out in the sticks, you knew what you were in for when you moved there.

As for your attempted comparison, I moved here when it was a vibrant neighborhood. Government moved in their lowlifes and destroyed it. So much shoplifting and theft the stores had to close down. Plus like everybody else, I have to shop frequently. You only vote twice a year for federal elections, or once every four years for the presidential election.
 
I don't know if anything will come of this but I agree with what he is doing.

giulini and other lawyers have been doing a lot of damage to our nation, election system and democracy.

Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to lie so blatantly and spread conspiracies.

They deserve to be disbarred.


So Americans are no longer allowed to bring up lawsuits or potential lawsuits. I don't agree with Giuliani and all the lawsuits, however lawmakers should not have the authority to disbar attorneys because of politics.

Americans are not allowed to clog up the courts with lawsuits which have no basis in law or in fact. This is why Jones Day, and the other name brand law firms which were originally filing the President's cases stopped defending their filings and refused to file further cases.

Time after time, the judges dismissed the suits on the basis that they made broad and sweeping claims of improprieties, but offered absolutely no evidence that the things they claimed were, in fact, happening.

Before you file suit, you need both facts and evidence. Lacking neither, you cannot legally file suit.
 
Many places have no polling places in the immediate area either.

That's no reason to set up an election that's more easily compromised. If you live out in the sticks, you knew what you were in for when you moved there.

As for your attempted comparison, I moved here when it was a vibrant neighborhood. Government moved in their lowlifes and destroyed it. So much shoplifting and theft the stores had to close down. Plus like everybody else, I have to shop frequently. You only vote twice a year for federal elections, or once every four years for the presidential election.

No one set up an election that is more easily compromised. That is a total lie.

The polling places which were closed were not "out in the sticks". Polling places which were closed were in predominently minority areas. They closed down the polling places where Democrats vote.

In Kansas City in 2018, there was only one polling station for voters in the poorest area of the city - and it was located outside of city limits, in an area which wasn't service by public transit.

This is a form of voter suppression. Just one of many embraced by Republicans to keep poor people from voting.
 
No one set up an election that is more easily compromised. That is a total lie.

The polling places which were closed were not "out in the sticks". Polling places which were closed were in predominently minority areas. They closed down the polling places where Democrats vote.

In Kansas City in 2018, there was only one polling station for voters in the poorest area of the city - and it was located outside of city limits, in an area which wasn't service by public transit.

This is a form of voter suppression. Just one of many embraced by Republicans to keep poor people from voting.

For your information, in this country, the county sets up polling locations, staff, and hours. If these minority areas you speak of closed polling places down, they are in Democrat ran counties more than likely. Plus they likely closed them down due to poor attendance from previous elections.

Where I live my voting location was three houses down and across the street. They closed it up and moved it to the library. That was fine too. Plenty of parking, enough room for people to wait to vote, great. Then they moved it from there to the high school. Miserable place to vote. You can't find a parking space half the time. You end up driving in the parking lot, out of the parking lot, turn around in the street, rinse and repeat.

Our city is predominantly Democrat and so is our county.
 

The general rule in this country, the so-called "American Rule" is that each party must pay its own attorney's fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). There are, however, numerous federal statutes providing for attorney fee awards where the United States or a federal agency or official is a party. The most generally applicable statute authorizing attorney's fees awards against the United States is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which makes the federal government liable for fees where:

(1) any other party would be liable under common law or under the terms of any federal statute which specifically provides for such an award, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); or
(2) in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort) brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1).
The above is DOJ policy, applying to federal agencies. They are NOT allowed to seek legal fees.


In any suit brought against a defendant, to the extent that a defendant has met the standards set forth under section 11112(a) of this titleand the defendant substantially prevails, the court shall, at the conclusion of the action, award to a substantially prevailing party defending against any such claim the cost of the suit attributable to such claim, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, if the claim, or the claimant’s conduct during the litigation of the claim, was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith. For the purposes of this section, a defendant shall not be considered to have substantially prevailed when the plaintiff obtains an award for damages or permanent injunctive or declaratory relief.
(Pub. L. 99–660, title IV, § 413, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3787.)

Want me to go get the state law too?

That doesn't apply to the federal government.
See DOJ policy above,
That's for fees AGAINST the UNITED STATES, not an award thereto:

"The most generally applicable statute authorizing attorney's fees awards against the United States is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which makes the federal government liable for fees where:"
 
I don't know if anything will come of this but I agree with what he is doing.

giulini and other lawyers have been doing a lot of damage to our nation, election system and democracy.

Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to lie so blatantly and spread conspiracies.

They deserve to be disbarred.


So Americans are no longer allowed to bring up lawsuits or potential lawsuits. I don't agree with Giuliani and all the lawsuits, however lawmakers should not have the authority to disbar attorneys because of politics.

Americans are not allowed to clog up the courts with lawsuits which have no basis in law or in fact. This is why Jones Day, and the other name brand law firms which were originally filing the President's cases stopped defending their filings and refused to file further cases.

Time after time, the judges dismissed the suits on the basis that they made broad and sweeping claims of improprieties, but offered absolutely no evidence that the things they claimed were, in fact, happening.

Before you file suit, you need both facts and evidence. Lacking neither, you cannot legally file suit.

What BS, they do it all the time and that is why many cases are dismissed. Attorneys try to make cases all the time, and facts and evidence are decided by judges. You are just blowing your usual mindless BS.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top