Tom Fitton

@TomFitton 1h

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1328328418186899457

Breaking: @RealDonaldTrump attorney files 'motion to show cause' with federal court over harassing call from Kirkland & Ellis firm that represents PA Sec of State Boockvar.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RELATING TO

HARASSMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL BY DEFENDANT BOOCKVAR’S

LEGAL COUNSEL, KIRKLAND & ELLIS

Since this case was filed, undersigned counsel has been subjected to continuous

harassment in the form of abusive e-mails, phone calls, physical and economic threats, and even

accusations of treason – all for representing the President of the United States’ campaign in this

litigation. It is one thing for members of the public to break the laws of decorum, or even laws of

Pennsylvania or the United States, by engaging in such harassment. This Court’s role is not to

protect counsel from such attacks. But it is another thing for a lawyer in the Washington, D.C.

office of Kirkland & Ellis, Secretary Boockvar’s outside counsel, to do so. And yet that is what

happened. It is quintessentially the Court’s role to police and appropriately sanction law firms

appearing in front of it for such conduct. It is plaintiff’s obligation to defend its counsel, and it

does so now by respectfully moving for an order for Kirkland & Ellis to show cause justifying

the conduct of its lawyers.

On November 14, 2020 at 8:43am, an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis left a one-minute

voicemail for undersigned counsel. The voicemail, which has been provided to counsel of record

from Kirkland & Ellis in this case and will be provided to the Court via email upon request,

speaks for itself and by any measure falls afoul of standards of professional conduct. Local Rule

83.23.2 adopts a Code of Professional Conduct for practitioners in this district which includes a

commitment to “treat with civility and respect the lawyers, clients, opposing parties, the court

and all the officials with whom I work.” LR 83.23.2 also adopts the Pennsylvania Rules of

Professional Conduct, the preamble to which states that “[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect

for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public

officials.” Preamble ¶ 5. But if there needs to be a rule saying that Kirkland & Ellis associates

should not call opposing counsel and leave an abusive voicemail then all hope is lost.

Contacted about this message, Secretary Boockvar’s counsel first opined that despite the

caller identification on the voicemail the call may not have been placed from Kirkland & Ellis.

Confronted with the fact that the firm issues cell phones to its lawyers and it should be easy to

check a directory to confirm that this number belongs to one of his colleagues, opposing counsel

finally admitted that it did, but then excused the conduct by saying the lawyer (who works in the

Page 2 of 4

3

same office) does not work on this case or in litigation, and offering that the call was

“discourteous” and apologizing for wasting time. That is not good enough under the Rules of

this Court or the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, and this Court’s authority to issue

sanctions exists in order to protect litigants, counsel, and the Rules themselves. It is sad that we

currently reside in a world where abuse and harassment are the costs of taking on a

representation unpopular with some. It is sanctionable when that abuse and harassment comes

from an elite law firm representing the Secretary of State. An appropriate sanction should

issue—one which deters such misconduct in the future. Cf. GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,

930 F. 3d 76, 82-85 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79

(3d Cir. 1994)) (Rule 37 sanctions should be tailored to deter similar misconduct in the future).

Plaintiffs defer to the Court as to what sanction is appropriate, and respectfully ask for an

order to show cause for the above-described conduct of Secretary Boockvar’s counsel.

Dated: November 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted:

case download- pdf: https://t.co/wrzlUnMJIR?amp=1

Never again! …to Smartmatic

The Manila Times

By

The Manila Times

June 21, 2016

By this time, only the truly uninformed would still find Smartmatic’s combination of PCOS/VCM (Precinct Count Optical Scan/Vote Counting Machine) and CCS (canvassing and consolidation system) an acceptable solution to the automation of Philippine elections. We used this solution in the last three National and Local Elections (NLE) and in all three, we experienced “glitches” and lack of transparency that convinced us of the system’s unreliability and its vulnerability to tampering.

Consider the following incidents:

During the canvassing of the 2008 ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) election, several precincts in Wao, Lanao del Sur, showed zero results. When this was reported to Smartmatic, a technical person in the company accessed the machines in Wao and made the correction … from Manila! This is the first proof that Smartmatic can change the results in any region, at will, from anywhere in the country.

Exactly one week before the 2010 elections, Smartmatic’s systems test yielded erroneous results. This triggered the replacement of supposedly “all CF cards” installed in the 82,000 PCOS machines. Many found it difficult to believe that they were able to do this successfully – i.e., replace those many CF cards in a span of one week. But if they failed to do so, how do we explain the fact that they were able to announce election results that came close to what the surveys published? One possibility stood out: program the results to follow the surveys. Hmm … not all that difficult to do.

In the same elections, the number of registered voters hit the 250 million mark at the start of canvassing – way, way beyond the 40-50 million actual count. Smartmatic again accessed the erroneous count and changed it. Yet another proof that they can easily alter election process figures.

In just the first two hours of canvassing of the 2013 Senatorial elections, Senator Poe garnered more than 10 million votes – and was wildly increasing by the minute. Again, Smartmatic accessed the system and altered the count progress to a more reasonable rate, once more proving that they could tamper with the results at will.

Toward the end of the canvassing in 2013, the votes went up and down by the millions, without any explanation being given by Smartmatic. Nor by Comelec. What? The voters did not have a say in the results?! What did Joseph Stalin say? “It is not the people who vote that count, it is the people who count the votes.”

Still in 2013, when the final results were published, they showed some ratios that were difficult to believe: the total votes of the administration candidates represented 60% of all the votes; those of the dominant opposition, 30%; and those of the rest of the candidates, 10% — in all the regions and in all the 16 canvassing reports. As if the results were pre-programmed.

During the canvassing of the May, 2016 NLEs, a Smartmatic technical person accessed the system, without proper authority, as usual, and modified the script to “supposedly correct” the “ñ” that printed as a “?”. Was that all that he changed? We don’t know. But the fact is that he could have made any alteration that he so desired.

The above includes only those violations committed by Smartmatic that show how easy it is for it and its partners and men to change the results of the elections. Smartmatic, after all, did not comply with many other requirements, both of the law, R.A. 9369, and of the bid specifications. Yet, they are getting away scot-free because Comelec has been allowing them to do that!

But should we, the voters, allow them? They have the power, even if not the authority, to control the results of our elections. And many suspect that they did act. But the problem with the Smartmatic system is that it is not transparent (intentionally, I suppose) and therefore it is so difficult to catch any wrongdoing.

I strongly recommended a step in the last elections that would have incorporated some transparency to the system – and the Comelec agreed to it – but Smartmatic did not implement that step properly. Was that intentional so we won’t be able to catch the tampering that they might have done during the canvassing?

continued….

https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/06/21/opinion/columnists/never-again-to-smartmatic/269238/

>>11668075

fake sydney powell account- disinfo (prolly true tho)

https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell12

FAKE

>>11667867

Jenna Ellis

@JennaEllisEsq

No lawyer should have to endure threats and abuse simply for representing a client. This is disgusting.

They’re scared because Trump is RIGHT that he won!

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1328355587009163267

Tim Murtaugh

@TimMurtaugh

One of our lawyers in PA has received abusive e-mails, calls & physical & economic threats.

One voicemail was from a lawyer at the firm representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, running far afoul of standards of professional conduct.

It has been turned over to the court.

https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1328353599865442304

>>11667867

hmmm…..

Kirkland & Ellis' Bill Barr Confirmed as Attorney General

Barr was confirmed Thursday afternoon by a 54-45 vote.

By Ellis Kim | February 14, 2019 at 02:03 PM

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/14/kirkland-ellis-bill-barr-confirmed-as-attorney-general/?slreturn=20201016104431

i will not give up hope on Barr, based upon his overt defense of christianity and understanding the planned cultural decay by leftists (Notre dame speech)

but perhaps…..

Mil is the only way.

Q said intel agencies would grow so powerful they would become a threat to our Republic.

What about Law Firms?