Any AG in the country could claim that ANY appeal is “frivolous” simply because a court has already ruled once. That’s what an appeal is.
These bastards need a dose of their own medicine.
If there was no merit to the case and no chance of reversal then they wouldn’t even have to spend attorney time defending it. I say the AG’s office should be audited and every hired person canned, for wasting taxpayer money on self-admittedly unnecessary expenses.
And then every appeal that this AG ever files needs to be called “frivolous” because a judge or court already ruled - and the fees need to be paid by him PERSONALLY.
Better yet. Linda Jordan needs to post a PDF of $13,000 for the AG to see, and call it good. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
This AG is too stupid to know that he’s arguing (supposedly on behalf of the State of Washington) that the Washington statute is unconstitutional because it doesn’t exempt Presidential elections from a provision allowing filing document fraud to be reported and investigated in a state court case. Then again, this guy is too stupid to know that cases filed under that statute are about fraud and not about Presidential eligibility. Apparently he thinks that the feds are supposed to do HIS JOB in enforcing state law.
I bet this guy doesn’t even know which end he chews his food from.
And yes, I know I’m talking to myself.
Sure, an appeal is not necessarily frivolous just because the trial court ruled. But some appeals are frivolous. I have no idea if the appeal in this case was; no one has posted the Washington Supreme Court's ruling finding it so.
If there was no merit to the case and no chance of reversal then they wouldn’t even have to spend attorney time defending it. I say the AG’s office should be audited and every hired person canned, for wasting taxpayer money on self-admittedly unnecessary expenses.
In my experience, it can sometimes take more work to respond to a frivolous appeal than to a meritorious one. If the appellant cites 100 cases in support of their argument, it takes a lot of time to read them all and demonstrate that they were previously overruled or do not say what the appellant says they say. If the appellant makes an extensive factual argument, counsel for the appellee has to review the entire trial court record to show that the claimed facts are not supported by the evidence submitted below.
Absolutely, anyone can make a claim that an appeal is frivolous in fact it is not that unusual for an attorney to make such a claim in their response but making a claim does not mean a court is going to agree with you.
I haven’t seen the WA Supreme Courts ruling but I would suspect it basicaly agrees with what the DSG laid out in his letter.