Attorney (for now) L. Lin Wood, one of the staunchest proponents of the election fraud lies, was proverbially kicked in the teeth by a federal court judge in Delaware yesterday. Wood had used the special permission of the court (a “pro hac vice” petition) to represent Carter Page in his lawsuit against the parent company of Yahoo and HuffPost. That permission has been revoked.
The judge looked at what Wood had done in a Georgia election challenge and noted that the complaint he filed "would not survive a law school civil procedure class" and the case itself was "textbook frivolous litigation." The judge was just getting warmed up. He ultimately revoked Wood’s privilege to argue in Delaware because of his “toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication, and surprising incompetence.”
For a lawyer who operates a national law practice, this does not portend well for the future.
“Release the Kraken” lawyer, Sidney Powell, also ran into a pro hac issue yesterday. She is still trying to challenge the election results in Georgia, having filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. One problem: she isn’t licensed in the 11th Circuit.
This is the quality of the lawyers who argued the election fraud cases. And still, some people believe there is merit in them. This all points to the need to be careful where you get your “news.” Harken back to the dismissal of a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson last September. I can’t state it better than the judge did.
“This ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ Fox persuasively argues that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes.”
Any. Reasonable. Viewer. [Written on January 12, 2021]
No comments:
Post a Comment