Hate to tell you this, but the PA Supreme Court is not SCOTUS.

For those wondering, SCOTUS UPLOADS ALL OF ITS ORDERS TO ITS WEBSITE.

no such order has been entered.

Yes.

She is doing more harm to the dems than good.

Requesting they call back Pitts after the video and witnesses prove he lied about being there.

saying the sec state debunked this, but State Farm arena just released the video for the first time last night.

You are fucking thick.

Just a truly terrible argument of semantics because you have nothing else.

“Even though I have an obligation to tell the truth enforced by civil and criminal penalties, I’m not under oath”

Sure thing.

What is being sworn in?

an obligation to tell the truth under civil and or criminal penalty

What is a duty of candor?

an obligation to tell the truth under civil and or criminal penalty

What do Attorneys place at the bottom of all Certifications submitted to the Court?

I hereby certify that the within facts are true to the best of my knowledge and if any of the foregoing is willfully false I am subject to punishment

Just. Too. Easy.

It claims to be a lawyer and cannot even read. 🤣

RPC 3.3 is the law in all 50 states

You must be a disaster in Court. Your malpractice carrier must hate you.

I judge a person by their actions, not who they have donated money to.

Lin Wood is fighting his ass off for our president, for us, using all the tools in his arsenal, including the Lord.

That, by definition, excludes him from being a shill.

I actually don’t have to vote for the GOP believe it or not.

When they all decided to jerk each other off on HB1 visas this week instead of defending our president, they reaped their harvest

And they will also be responsible for what they “post”

That’s the point you are missing. “Publishers” are responsible for false, defamatory, misleading, or violent inducing statements.

Thus, allowing calls for violence by the left, but not the right, makes them liable.

Censoring the truth, but allowing lies about Trump, makes them liable.

Aba Model rule 3.3.

Your “friend” sounds like a grade A dipshit

Guess you have never read the ABA mode rules then? Specifically 3.3.

Lots of terrible attorneys here, this movement is definitely in good hands with larpers like yourself

Yes.

Here you go, faggots

And specifically Rule 3.3:

Lawyers are officers of the court. Although they have a duty to zealously represent the interests of their clients, they must do so in an ethical manner. The cites in this post are to the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the ABA rules aren’t binding, every state has adopted either the ABA rules or a substantially similar version making them law in each state.

Rule 3.3 of the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct says lawyers “shall not knowingly” make false statements to a court or offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. The latter means even if the lawyer doesn’t lie, he cannot let his client lie either.

Lawyers, per the ABA model rules, cannot lie to a court, in any circumstance.

Honestly, this website is starting to get so toxic with you know it all larpers.

Me too, remember that paper you signed on being sworn in to the bar of your state? You shoulda read it.

No offense, but you are most likely a very, very mediocre attorney if you were unaware of this fact.

Especially when they have a fake pandemic to give them as much time as they need to cook the books

Spoiler alert Ronna, everyone here also did not vote for trump before 2016

(Surprised pikachu face)

Yes. And in fact that is what the PA GOP is arguing in their yesterday writ application. Specifically that the lower court summarily dismissed their complaint with prejudice without conducting and discovery.

Highly unusual to do that. And SCOTUS may very well remand that case with an added injunction over certification during the pendency of the case.

These were duplicated ballots, ie ballots that are claimed to be illegible damaged won’t scan, jam the machine etc. So the process as I understand it was someone would have to take a duplicate ballot and refill the bubbles to get it counted.

3% on these implies individuals, at the local level, were simply invalidating your ballot, creating a duplicate, and changing your vote.

Idk a shitload of streams of this, and millions of streams of Trump’s speech.

I think libtards are tuning in, hoping that “the walls finally close in” and more than a few end up getting redpilled as they watch, immigrants, blacks, truckers, and old ladies get harangued by these rabid liberal dogs for giving convincing testimony.

I’ll break it down to clarify:

SCOTUS grants a Writ of Cert., which is the Writ which requires the lower court to send its full record to the Court for review. Accordingly, evidence not presented and preserved in the lower courts generally cannot be presented when you get to SCOTUS. This is a rule that applies in all cases, in any appellate court, nationwide; failure to produce obtainable evidence or evidence within your possession in the original action does not entitle you to do so later to gain a strategic advantage.

However, you may bring in “new evidence” during an appellate review to the extent that such evidence is “newly discovered,” ie it was not available to you when you brought the previous action

In Sidney’s case, I strain to think of any reason why she would think she could omit evidence in her possession now. If she has the goods, she actual has an obligation to bring it with her pending litigation. Omitting it here, in the hopes that “I can bring it later at SCOTUS” would actually be serious malpractice against her clients.

All in favor of bringing back the sons of liberty and uniform of the Continental Army say aye!