Posted on 11/18/2020 12:37:17 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Perhaps the wrong question is being asked about whether state legislatures can choose Trump electors because of evidence widespread of fraud in their elections where Biden supposedly "won." The better question might be can state legislatures just DECLINE to send electors to the electoral college due to evidence of widespread fraud which has not been resolved by the time they need to be sent?
Let us take Georgia as an example. In the light of fraud and the REFUSAL by the Secretary of State to allow a full audit of the ballots, can the state legislature state that since the issue has NOT been resolved as to fraud, they cannot determine the true winner and therefore DECLINE to send any electors to the electoral college?
This would also apply to the states of NV, AZ, PA, MI, and WI.
I see your point, though. They shouldn’t have allowed fear to influence them. But in my youth, I lived in that kind of neighborhood to be closer to work. Most people who write comments here would have done what Palmer and Hartmann did in that situation.
Canvassers in those neighborhoods need to be young, in very good physical condition, very well trained in self-defense and have a large contingent of tough security guards with them (trained fighters with cameras connected to the Net, remote security watching over them, etc.). They really need a small army with them. They’d be surrounded by a foreign nation resembling Winnie Mandela’s mob.
Election board members in those neighborhoods, even. Trying to do several things at once here.
Unless there's some other reason for the withdrawal that we don't know about, those lawyers violated their professional obligations. Sometimes the client wants to do something that the lawyer doesn't think he can do, but that's clearly not what happened here: The campaign actually dropped their more controversial claims after Porter Wright withdrew. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that the campaign no longer wanted to pay Porter Wright's fees--they have certainly gone with what appear to be less expensive lawyers since then.
I know this is not specifically what we were talking about, but as a lawyer I feel the need to rant about it.
Thank you for bringing that up. Is there something in law to enforce against harassment or threatening behavior in those situations? Judges are bound in rules and procedures of at least some states against opinions based on fear (to put it loosely), but there are strong legal remedies against trying to scare judges. Do such remedies exist for attorneys and election board members?
I’m not a lawyer but have volunteered for a narrow interest activity in the past (family rights). Disclaimer: There’s *no* legal advice from anyone in this discussion. It’s only an informal discussion concerning policies.
Making terroristic threats and some other forms of harassment are, of course, crimes in most states, and are usually punished more severely if committed against a public servant, which in some cases would include an election board member. Disrupting official proceedings and obstructing the discharge of public duties are also usually crimes. In the age of anonymous online communications, enforcement is difficult and rare, of course.
Of course, some of the complained-of harassment was accusations of racism. That is not a crime, of course, but may subject the accuser to liability for damages for defamation. Of course, defamation lawsuits are tough to win, and many of the accusers here probably don’t have much money from which to collect damages (they’re “judgment-proof” in lawyer-speak).
I don’t know of any state laws providing special protections for attorneys. Judges have the power to impose sanctions or hold people in contempt for harassing opposing lawyers or parties, but that power extends only to punishing the parties and lawyers who are actually before the judge, not the general public.
Linda Kerns, the lawyer who took over the Pennsylvania litigation after Porter Wright withdrew, filed a motion asking the judge to impose sanctions on the PA Secretary of State’s lawyers because an associate from their firm, Kirkland & Ellis, left Kerns a harassing voicemail. The opposing lawyers argued that the associate had nothing to do with the case, that the associate was acting only in his individual capacity, and that the call was “discourteous” but not harassing. The judge denied Kerns’ motion after Kerns withdrew from the lawsuit.
This Republican attorneys’ news conference has been live for some time now, but the recording of the whole thing will probably be available at this same address afterwards.
LIVE NOW: Presidential Election fallout and analysis on Newsmax TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39WrSskl3XE
It’s not only a presentation in regards to legal issues. It’s far more serious than that.
So there are legal remedies for threats and harassment, especially in cases of threats and harassment against public servants. But as we know, some of those jurisdictions in question are administered by improperly subjective judicial officials.
There’s also the glaring problem of poor election systems of law in some of the states. One state should not be allowed to change the outcome of a federal election by committing election fraud in the practical (not legal) sense.
If we see no judicial remedy with a changed election outcome, the Democrat Party will obviously try to cement the corruption and run with it (hard socialism without a legitimate election system).
Consequently, the process of solving the problem will be complicated indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.