Dominion Voting Systems Sues Sidney Powell

a reply to: Phage

I am guessing that they would.

Yes but if the Judge finds in her favor it would be very interesting to see where that would lead.

a reply to: Edumakated

It's called a "slapp" suit and its sole purpose is to shut someone up either through fear of going broke, or fear of being publicly embarrased.

"strategic lawsuit against public participation"

Makes me hate my own profession that there's so many dicks out there willing to do this.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If she had it then why did she quietly drop her lawsuit against Georgia this week?

Typos and forgetting to sign pleadings? Suspect, imo.

I've been a lawyer almost 30 years.

Typos are a fact of life for people who use words for a living, even obvious ones, please get past it.

Edit: heck, one my favorite sci-fi authors, Peter Hamilton, put out books that were so typo-ridden that I almost couldn't read them. And those were "professionally" edited.

a reply to: Edumakated

Either that or they are sleeping together and trying to get a big payout for all parties involved.

a reply to: Edumakated

And by extension, her claims were correct...

Only if she can prove they were. She hasn't managed to do that so far. Dominion was started in Venezuela? Seriously?

Losing a defamation suit does not necessarily mean the person you were suing was right. It can mean a couple of different things. It can mean that you could not prove that you were harmed by the lie. It can mean that you can't prove the defendant knew they were lying when they did so.

www.nolo.com...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I believe that this is a very Bad idea from Dominion, unless they have done nothing wrong. If Sidney wins this case that means that Dominion did indeed fake an election. Class action lawsuit from 75 million people. How much is your vote worth?

That is what could be inferred if she wins, but the legal system doesn't actually work that way...

By the time the case is over, Joe will probably be dead or drooling on himself. Also unless someone brings charges specifically for fraud, nothign will happen. It will just get buried and forgotten about outside of conspriacy theory message boards.

Is a class action lawsuit against Dominion an option?

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If she had it then why did she quietly drop her lawsuit against Georgia this week?

Typos and forgetting to sign pleadings? Suspect, imo.

I've been a lawyer almost 30 years.

Typos are a fact of life for people who use words for a living, even obvious ones, please get past it.

Edit: heck, one my favorite sci-fi authors, Peter Hamilton, put out books that were so typo-ridden that I almost couldn't read them. And those were "professionally" edited.

Could a typo render an important case null and void?

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If she had it then why did she quietly drop her lawsuit against Georgia this week?

Typos and forgetting to sign pleadings? Suspect, imo.

I've been a lawyer almost 30 years.

Typos are a fact of life for people who use words for a living, even obvious ones, please get past it.

Edit: heck, one my favorite sci-fi authors, Peter Hamilton, put out books that were so typo-ridden that I almost couldn't read them. And those were "professionally" edited.

Could a typo render an important case null and void?

Never.

Cases - lawsuits - aren't "null and void", that's just not a term or a thing.

Cases have "merit" but may be dismissed on other seemingly technical grounds (but which in fact have good public policy behind them) like statute of limitations, or the suit was filed in the wrong court.

And no, it would be a rare typo that would render a case "meritless" and it would be the rarer judge who didn't give the lawyer a chance to replead.

Yesterday I drafted a complaint where part of the allegations must contain the last date work was done on a project - it sets the timeliness of the lawsuit (statute of limitations). If I typo'd that date the judge almost 100% of the time would give a chance to re-plead with the correct time. "Judge, it was a typo" "Okay counselor, file an amended pleading so we have a good set of allegations."

I can't even imagine a situation where a case would be outright dismissed on a typo - the law isn't there to screw people, it's to try to do justice between parties who have a legitimate dispute.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Are sworn affidavits considered enough for a Court to hold a hearing?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


And, of course, if the affidavit from Italy is genuine...she has something there, too, that's more than just hearsay.

Which affidavit?

There's the fantasy one, about the embassy and Rome with fictional people hacking the election.

There's the real one, which is about an irrelevant case of hacking which has been spun into the election fraud narrative because most of the people who are waiting for the Kraken struggle with conditional verbs in English, let alone a foreign language.

You’re right! I don’t dont do Mandarin!

C’mon Man!

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: LanceCorvette

Are sworn affidavits considered enough for a Court to hold a hearing?

Not being rude, but there's like 20 things wrong with that sentence.

Sworn affidavits are written testimony. They are subject to all the same objections that oral testimony is subject to, and are analyzed and argued the same as oral testimony. Thinks like, does the affiant have direct knowledge of the content of the affidavit, or is it second hand? Are the facts stated in the affidavit sufficiently detailed to be reliable as true. I could go on.

An example of one or the other might be, "He caused the car accident" -> that's a conclusion based on a set of facts that we may or may not know. That by itself would be unreliable opinion evidence, and excluded from a hearing on the issue of whether "he" caused the car accident.

OTOH, '"I was standing at the crosswalk waiting to cross. I had the "do not walk" sign because there was a green light that I saw on that street. While I was standing there, I noticed a red Camaro drving toward the intersection in the other direction of travel where there was a red light. It didn't slow down, and it drove through the red light. I saw it hit the other car that was driving through the green light.

Courts hold "hearings" and "trials" for many reasons, or for no reasons. The purpose of a hearing is generally to resolve specific factual or legal issues - is it an evidentiary hearing, or a hearing on a motion for a legal issu.

I can't say that, in the courts I've worked in, that just filing an affidavit as part of a suit will automatically trigger a hearing on any issue. I doubt that would be the case anywhere in the USA.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Drucifer

I agree. We all need to know. I wonder if MSM will cover it at length, like they did the OJ case.

Genius Uk comedian Armando Ianucci tricked OJ into signing a confession here.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Yeah. My English skills are not desirable. Nonetheless, thanks for explaining some of the ways the system works.

Easy, claim she had covid which is said to cause lasting neurological issues and counter sue China for damages.

a reply to: TheLead

You mean cognitive issues?
That would indeed be a piece of cake.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

And by extension, her claims were correct...

Only if she can prove they were. She hasn't managed to do that so far. Dominion was started in Venezuela? Seriously?

Losing a defamation suit does not necessarily mean the person you were suing was right. It can mean a couple of different things. It can mean that you could not prove that you were harmed by the lie. It can mean that you can't prove the defendant knew they were lying when they did so.

www.nolo.com...

Powel doesn't have to prove anything. Dominion plaintiffs must do all the proving. They must prove that Sidney is lying.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Powel doesn't have to prove anything.

You're right. But unless she can prove her claims are accurate, they aren't.

They must prove that Sidney is lying.

Yeah. All they have to do is prove that Dominion was not founded in Venezuela. That should be really hard to do.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Powel doesn't have to prove anything.

You're right. But unless she can prove her claims are accurate, they aren't.

They must prove that Sidney is lying.

Yeah. All they have to do is prove that Dominion was not founded in Venezuela. That should be really hard to do.

No, Unless Dominion can prove her claims are inaccurate, they ARE accurate. And they lose the case.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

All they have to do is prove that Dominion was not founded in Venezuela. That should be really hard to do.

But I'm pretty sure that their attorneys are a lot smarter than Sidney. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.

But we'll see what happens, to borrow a phrase.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

And by extension, her claims were correct...

Only if she can prove they were. She hasn't managed to do that so far. Dominion was started in Venezuela? Seriously?

Losing a defamation suit does not necessarily mean the person you were suing was right. It can mean a couple of different things. It can mean that you could not prove that you were harmed by the lie. It can mean that you can't prove the defendant knew they were lying when they did so.

www.nolo.com...

Powel doesn't have to prove anything. Dominion plaintiffs must do all the proving. They must prove that Sidney is lying.

this is a true fact.

Dominion is the plaintiff. It's their burden to prove their case - that she said or wrote something defamatory about their business; that it wasn't true; and that they suffered monetary loss as a result of it.