• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PDS last won the day on April 1 2019

PDS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

1 Follower

About PDS

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    David Seyfert
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10,346 profile views
  1. I am assuming that Rudy G is NOT committing malpractice. This is the way lawyers talk: i.e., you presume the strategy employed by a fellow lawyer does NOT include malpractice. Here, I am assuming that, instead, Rudy’s team cannot meet the evidentiary standards for fraud. Thus the two if’s used in my formulation. Let’s not get personal, MSK. No need to call me names, and no need to speculate about my motives for making statements here on OL. I might turn out to be wrong in places, but you can at least presume good faith. I’m not interested wasting my own or anybody else’s
  2. “And, of course, get rid of the bad actors.” How many Justices of the Supreme Court would this include? 7, 9, or just the 3-4 liberals?
  3. You may be right about the strategy you outline above, Ellen. [Good to talk to you, by the way]. That would be a very high-risk, high-reward strategy, and there really is no downside to including the fraud claim in the original pleading or complaint, so I tend to doubt this is what the thinking was. In complex civil litigation, there are usually an abundance of causes of action plead, and when it looks like one or two don’t pan out, those claims can then be voluntarily dismissed. There’s almost no risk to that. There’s a ton of risk to your suggestion, because once the underl
  4. “There’s a ton load of stuff like that.” This comment proves my point. If so, then why haven’t Trump’s lawyers made fraud allegations? I jumped in above after you posted the video about “election fraud” from EconomicWarRoom. If there is so much “election fraud”, and if it so easily demonstrable, then Trump’s lawyers have committed malpractice by not pleading it. I’m not criticizing the Trump lawyers’ win loss record—which isn’t exactly pretty—I’m criticizing their failure to plead the very cause of action that so many Trump supporters have been led to believe is the cornerston
  5. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Fraud allegations can be added to civil proceedings as a separate (Civil) cause of action. The allegations need only be proven by a preponderance of evidence. There is no reason for the Trump lawyers NOT to include fraud allegations in their swing states’ lawsuits—assuming they have the goods. There is a logical and likely reason the lawyers haven’t specifically asserted fraud allegations in Trump’s swing states’ lawsuits—at least the ones I have reviewed. The reason? They don’t feel comfortable making that statement without facts, or admissible
  6. Is there a state court lawsuit in which Trump’s lawyers (as opposed to Lin Wood or somebody) are alleging election fraud? It looks like Trump’s lawyers have actually disavowed any fraud claims in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada. This is pretty important, no? [Edit: I just read the Wisconsin lawsuit filed by Trump on December 1, 2020, and there is no allegation of fraud.]
  7. Andrew McCarthy at National Review has a pretty blistering piece up about the merits of the State of Texas lawsuit. He claims that the project is doomed to fail because the States lack standing, and that they also may have waited too long (which is undoubtedly true; whether that matters or not in the litigation is a separate question). In 2019, McCarthy wrote a pretty pro Trump book about the D playbook in creating the Russian collusion narrative. He is generally pretty solid on legal issues, imo. Probably worth bearing in mind before labeling McCarthy just another Republican Squish
  8. The other states having joined the Texas lawsuit makes this a true heavyweight fight.
  9. Powell’s work on behalf of General Flynn was some of the best I have ever seen. In fact, that work convinced me to contribute to Flynn’s legal defense fund. On the other hand, she hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as of yet in any of her Trump cases. Election law is pretty nuanced, and it is a basic fact that every lawyer wants to win at the trial court level because that has a crucial effect upon the standard for appeal. Losing is not a strategy to get to the Supreme Court, in other words. As with chess, a beginning loss can have a decisive effect upon the middle and end pro
  10. MSK: This one could be a Big Cut. I read their motion. I’m pretty sure the Supremes will have to decide their motion to stay sometime this week. Be on the lookout today or tomorrow for the subject states—and other Red states—to join in this lawsuit. If that happens (not sure about the procedural hurdles to that In MIchigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Georgia—especially if a state’s governor does not consent) then most of the key issues look like they will be teed up for an overarching Supreme Court ruling. Unlike other Kraken-type lawsuits, this one is brought by the
  11. Ellen: I’m not a mind reader, but I highly doubt a 69-70 year old man—who last served as state court judge 20+ years prior to the Gorsuch or Kavanaugh appointments, realistically expected a Supreme Court appointment. The “bench” for potential all-star Supreme Court judges—both then and now, in conservative legal circles—is quite deep, something he undoubtedly knew. I can’t even remember when an active state court trial judge, let alone a retired one, was appointed to the Supreme Court. There is always the possibility that Napolitano is simply voicing his honest opinion, i.e., no
  12. Peter: I have taken a look at your website, which is fascinating. Thank you for putting these materials in the public domain. I just read your translation of E's Letter to Menoikos and enjoyed it greatly. Very interesting how much it reminded me of some Seneca's letter's (On the Shortness of Life?), at least in tone if not also in substance. Thanks again. PDS
  13. Couldn't Roark have done a podcast or something instead?
  14. As it should be. President Trump deserves a lot of credit for sticking with Judge Kavanaugh through that circus. I can’t think of any other Republican president, save possibly Reagan, who would have had the stones to do so.