Now might be a good time to get an update from @Uniformed_ReRe and @grandhavendiddy on how Dominion's lawsuit against Sidney is going. She in jail yet?
Mike Lindell sues Dominion for $1.6 Billion!
- Thread starter GhostOfMatchesMalone
- Start date
Now might be a good time to get an update from @Uniformed_ReRe and @grandhavendiddy on how Dominion's lawsuit against Sidney is going. She in jail yet?
At worst, and assuming she is in the wrong, Sidney will get drained with massive legal fees and a public mea culpa. (She would declare bankruptcy before paying any large settlement) Guiliani will probably die broke.
We will see. She may indeed have "the Kracken"....or it may be a ruse that "no reasonable person would buy into" or whatever she filed.
She should have, instead, worked to be the law firm that wrote in new codicils for the voting laws. Far sturdier ground and she could have made money versus lost it.
We will see. She may indeed have "the Kracken"....or it may be a ruse that "no reasonable person would buy into" or whatever she filed.
She should have, instead, worked to be the law firm that wrote in new codicils for the voting laws. Far sturdier ground and she could have made money versus lost it.
LOL both can file bankruptcy, write books and hit the circuit. They will be fine.
You might be right. She should start writing that book though - legal fees are mounting.
The lawsuit is 9 months old, isn't it? Clearly she can afford to keep the charade going. Besides, her best buddy is Trump, one of the richest men in the world.
The key question is: Why isn't she already in jail? Why hasn't the judge already ruled for her?
Has ANYTHING happened in this case? Someone who is objective will look at this lawsuit and conclude dominion has no case, and can't refute Sidney's claims, they just hope they can run up her legal fees and get her to settle.
You have basically admitted this is their plan.
All because she said she had seen proof that Trump really won. And Trump haters didn't want to hear that. Hell you are even cheerleading for Rudy to get his too.
So sad. There was a time in this country where we celebrated our patriots, we didn't seek to punish them for telling the truth.
The Defense filed their Answer/Counterclaim on September 24, 2021.
It included Twenty-Five Affirmative Defenses and the Counter Claim of Abuse of Process.
The entire docket Sheet:
Docket for US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, 1:21-cv-00040 - CourtListener.com
Docket for US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, 1:21-cv-00040 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
"Unless otherwise expressly admitted, Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint, including without limitation, any allegations in the headings, subheadings, preamble, exhibits, relief sought, and general and specific prayers."The Defense filed their Answer/Counterclaim on September 24, 2021.
It included Twenty-Five Affirmative Defenses and the Counter Claim of Abuse of Process.
The entire docket Sheet:
Docket for US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, 1:21-cv-00040 - CourtListener.com
Docket for US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, 1:21-cv-00040 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.www.courtlistener.com
@grandhavendiddy I thought you said she filed that she made it all up?
This is why you don't get your information from shit sources spreading shit agendas.
Her lawyers made the filing that “no reasonable person”.
Its in the hands of the courts at this point
Its in the hands of the courts at this point
Nope. Her lawyers issued a statement saying that was the MEDIA SPIN of the filing, and she wanted to clear the air because some people were being hoodwinked by the media spin of what the filing said and was.
And still are, it appears.
What was the nuanced reading of her filing then?
nevermind, the Courts will decide and she can take it all the way up to a friendly supreme court
A friendly SC? LOL See you are already setting up your excuses now that it's clear this lawsuit isn't going the way you hoped. If the SC were friendly to Sidney, they would have heard the motion by TX to stop the count. Which the Constitution said they should have and I believe Justice Thomas stated this as well.
Sidney is a wonderful litmus test for exposing posters who claim to be indies, who are really dems.
All Sidney said was that Trump really won and that they rigged the election.
EVERY poster here claiming to be an independent lost their shit over her claims. To the poster.
Again, independent voters have no emotional investment in either side. They simply don't care.
TRUE independents look at this case, the claims made by both sides, and think 'whoa that sounds salacious! Let's see what happens'
Contrast that with your reaction. And @Uniformed_ReRe and @kalimgoodman and @BSC911. All of you had the precise same reaction toward Sidney when she made those claims.
Your anger betrays you.
That’s exactly what I said: let’s see it play out. Its in the courts and will be played out there.
As you said, I really don’t care.
I think what you are brushing past is that conservative judges generally vote or rule based on constitutional principles. It's the leftards that are the activist judges. Conservative judges don't have half the social bias the Dimtard appointees have. You can bet on how the leftard judges are going to rule on any controversial issue 99% of the time. That can't be said for the current conservative majority. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavenaugh have been wild cards on different issues.
The leftards? I could own Las Vegas betting on every damn thing they rule on.
You are right on voting patterns which is why I went straight to the supreme court which has a 6-3 conservative majority
So your point is that the law is on Sidney's side, and once the case gets to the SC she will win as a result of the SC having a conservative majority? Because to @NavigatorII' point, conservative SC judges tend to vote on the law as written (which is what all SC judges are supposed to do) while liberal judges vote on how they WISH the law was written.
I just hope all these audits and lawsuits etc. will set things up where they can force the courts to act if this much cheating goes on again in the swing states with the Trump hating people that had the power over review of the fraud. There is a reason FL didn't have the same massive fraud - because they cleaned Broward up some after they tried to keep generating votes to screw DeSantis over and because the person over that stuff at the state level wasn't a Trump hater like that crook in Georgia who although a Rep had Obama operatives assisting him to screw Trump.
Fair question. She may win at any stage in the legal and appellate process. You noted the bias above. Most would agree with that summary.
My point is that at, at least, the final step, should it get to that point, the Supreme Court, there she will have a conservative hearing which will look at the plaintiff's argument, look at the facts and applicable law and make a determination.
If the charges are upheld at that last SC point, then one would take from it that her actions were indeed inflammatory and defamatory.
FInal step? According to her recent response, they have no case. Sounds like the case won't go past this point.
What charges?
DEM Leadership in Fairfax, VA is scared the DEMs will lose power, including the Governor in the upcoming election, so the County Council took an unprecedented step, and even though the early voting/mail in ballots have been going on for 2 weeks, changed/suspended the requirement of a witness signature on the mail in ballot. Now, normally if they received a mail in ballot missing the witness, they would try to contact the person to have the issue fixed, now, they will just count the vote.
#1 - The Supreme Court is only supreme to the other lower courts.
It is not made up of supreme beings with the final word.
The final word on everything, still remains with We The People.
#2. The SC is supposed to be made up of Fully Qualified Persons of Honor that have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not anything else.
The Constitution is neither liberal nor conservative, it is what it is and it's clearly stated as We The People >>> putting limits on any government that assumes elected office.
The FIX is in, and now they will just count any illegitimate vote for their side.
(can I get a witness???) 😉
If they dismiss Dominion's case, then she is exonerated in this court from charges of defamation and the discussion is put to rest.
My point is that if the law is on her side, and all of the lower courts are biased against her, the ultimate arbiter will not have a liberal bias.
To your other note, this may all be dismissed in the original court.
F*k the USA!” – Dominion’s Eric Coomer Admits Under Oath to Being former Skinhead, Heroin Addict – Lied in Denver Post Screed (VIDEO)
Coomer admits that he posted “F— the USA” on his Facebook media. The person who is the head of security for one of the largest national voting systems had regularly expressed the most toxic and extreme left views possible. Coomer admits that he only meant to share these views with his 300 Facebook friends by setting his account to private. Later, when he realized his posts were being reported upon by center-right journalist Joe Oltmann, he deleted some 80+ of his posts.
Coomer also claims to have been a skinhead in the past, and became addicted to heroin, cocaine, and opioids. He also verifies that he had a tattoo of the artwork the “Screaming Popes” by Francis Bacon. Bacon was an extreme-left atheist whose macabre series of paintings depict Catholic Popes screaming in agony.
😂
Count every "vote" eh @LizardGrad89 😂😂😂😂
I don't care about biases. Can the judges overcome their biases and judge cases based on the law AS WRITTEN? That's all I care about, and it's all any patriotic American should care about.
And the Supreme Court doesn't have a 6-3 Conservative majority. John Roberts is NOT a conservative judge, he's a political one.
Case in point: When Texas filed suit against 4 other states in January, the Constitution is clear; The Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction and must take the case.
Roberts refused. So the case wasn't heard. In dissent, both Justices Thomas and Alito clarified that the Constitution obligates the Court to hear the case.
But Roberts refused. Days later, we learned from clerks working the Court that they had overheard violent shouting matches over whether they would hear the case. Thomas, Alito and the 3 Trump appointees argued that the Constitution was clear, they had to hear the case. Roberts and the 3 other liberal judges screamed that they couldn't dare take the case. Roberts screamed that it would 'cause riots' if they heard it.
Roberts has a history of letting politics cloud his decisions. And unfortinately, as Chief Justice, he has immense sway over the entire court. Remember when he literally rewrote Obamacare to make it a tax?
Come now Ghost, with all his wisdom, Roberts KNEW the DEMS meant to say tax and not a penalty, because a penalty would be unconstitutional.
Roberts looked me in the eye and promised to uphold the Constitution. He lied to me.
I think that is right which is why I noted 6-3 versus 5-4.
My intuition is that he is concerned (recently) about court packing and forever undoing the legitimacy of the court. If the court, for example, over-turns Roe V. Wade, watch the liberals go full press on removing the filibuster, adding in DC and PR as states and packing the court.
When the courts are corrupt,,,
And when the vote is stolen,,,
Then you begin to understand why the 2nd Amendment was included, and why it's so important for a FREE people to have as their last resort.... 🤔
And when the vote is stolen,,,
Then you begin to understand why the 2nd Amendment was included, and why it's so important for a FREE people to have as their last resort.... 🤔
The SC will never overturn Roe v Wade as long as Roberts is CJ, because he doesn't want to be known as the Chief Justice that sat on the court when it was overturned.
Again, he's a political judge, he is more concerned with his reputation than the law.
I saw a poll recently, the majority of both dems and pubs now favor secession.
No idea what he thinks, but I don't think so. We've got a deep split but it's not geographical this time, making it difficult to mete out regions. For example, Florida is deeply red with the exception of a handful of counties. It's not as stark a difference in CA but it's the same way there. We'd have to break up various states and a new coalition would not have contiguous borders.
Disagree, punt the NE and Left Coast to Canada.
Ebbbbberbody is leaving California. Newsom's mandate for kids to get the vaccine to go to school was apparently the last straw.
Saw that too. I tend to believe that was more about the respondents than the statistics...but I've been wrong before.
Not sure how that will work to be honest. What do we do in Florida? Take a chainsaw, carve out Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties? Chain them together, set them adrift, hope the gulf stream carries them north, they throw out anchor off Long Island, NY? 😂 Trust me, I'd love to send them back to the hell they came from, just not sure how this will work. We certainly don't want them here.
And for real, hope Bradleygator is banned for life.
Secession -- the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.
IMO, America is not a political state, it's a Constitutional Republic, "IF WE CAN KEEP IT."
No to secession, but I'm hoping for a MASSIVE REVOLUTION by the 50 united States to throw the traitorous Marxist/Socialist out of every level of power in my beloved country, beginning in the DC swamp, but moving out from there to state and local. Actually it's become a bottomless cesspool of corruption that's also being pushed by the Federal 3 letter Domestic Terrorists it seems to me.
Non-violent revolution would be my 1st choice, but using the 2nd Amendment if that becomes necessary to root out the traitors to their Oaths of Office....
5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office. An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the united States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;"
(The iG has formally and proudly taken that lifetime sacred oath.)
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the united States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the united States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the united States.
