Election Fraud Lies: The Kraken Part 1 - Who Stole The Spellcheck?
Sidney Powell, PC, famed Texas attorney, has Released the Kraken! The long-awaited cephalopod emerged from the depths Thanksgiving Eve and splashed down like month-old fish on a Cryptocaryon-infested deli counter.
Because the lawsuits and their remora "affidavits" are very long and redundant and fact-devoid, I've separated this Election Fraud Lie into multiple parts. This part concerns the misspelling, inter-word spacing failures, and other formatting errors that make these court filings on the most important legal matter of our lifetime questionable at best.
During the past month we've witnessed the vast majority of the MSM and Democrat judges ignore or downplay true facts conclusively proved in court filings and affidavits describing serious criminal acts committed in Georgia and other states with the intent of defrauding President Trump of his guaranteed re-election.
Thankfully, Texas attorney Sidney Powell has stepped up to the pier and unleashed the Kraken into the public pool. The Kraken is the loosely matched pair of Georgia and Michigan lawsuits that provide irrefutable proof of the massive fraud perpetrated against OUR PRESIDENT.
The Action Locations
Sidney Sez: Oh, hell. You know what I meant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICCT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRCOICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRCT OF MICHIGAN
The Plaintiffs (MI)
Sidney Sez: Spaces? We don' need no steenkeen spaces!
TIMOTHY KING,MARIAN ELLEN
The Defendants (GA)
REBECCA N.SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as a member of the Georgia State Election Board
Nature of the Action (MI)
Sock it to 'em, Sidney! Demoncrats have gone TOO FAR this time!
This civil action brings to light a massive election fraud, multiple violations of the Michigan Election Code, see, e.g., MCL §§ 168.730-738,
in addition to the Election and Electors Clauses and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution violations that occurredduring the 2020 General Election throughout the State of Michigan,1as set forth in the affidavits of dozens of eye witnesses and the statistical anomalies and mathematical impossibilities detailed in the affidavits of expert witnesses.
EdG grammatical edit of stricken text above: in addition to violations of the Election and Electors Clauses and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution that occurred
Paragraph 16 (GA)
Sidney Sez: Grammer iz hard!
Additionally, incontrovertible evidence Board of Elections records demonstrates that at least 96,600 absentee ballots were requested and counted but were never recorded as being returned to county election boards by the voter. Thus, at a minimum, 96,600 votes must be disregarded.
Footnote 27 (GA)
Sidney Sez: Who stole the spellcheck? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof
27 Presumably the machiens were not altered following submission of the code. LONDON, ENGLAND / ACCESSWIRE / August 10, 2017, Voting Technology Companies in the U.S. - Their Histories and Present Contributions
Paragraph 13.B (MI)
Sidney Sez: Hey! I'm inna hurry, y'all!
The above mistakes in Sidney's complaint do her no favors. I have used WordPerfect, the word processing software of choice in the legal profession, since 1983. Spellcheckers have been available at least that long. But somehow, a professional attorney and her staff failed to spellcheck what may be the most important legal case since Bush v. Gore.
And if you want to blame the legal secretary, keep in mind that the attorney bears ultimate responsibility for all work product. Here are a pair of amusing rulings from US District Court judges regarding attorney writing skills (or lack thereof): [EdG Note: I would cite these cases in my motion to dismiss if I were the defendants.]
Kuzmin v. Thermaflo, Inc., Nos. 2:07-cv-00554-TJW, 2:08-cv-0031-TJW-CE, 2009 WL 1421173 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2009).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sanctioned the plaintiff’s attorney for poor writing and violations of ethical obligations. The court noted that counsel’s brief was badly formatted and contained numerous spelling errors. Id. at *2. The court admonished the plaintiff’s attorney, stating, “By submitting a poorly written brief, the attorney fails the Court as well as the client.” Id.
Sanfilippo v. Comm’r of Social Sec., No. 8:04-CV-2079-T-27MSS, 2008 WL 1957836 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2008).
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida greatly reduced the plaintiff’s attorney fees requested in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The court found that the attorney’s work was not of high quality because it did not reflect the preparation time claimed to have been invested in drafting the legal memoranda, it was replete with spelling and grammatical errors, and it contained conjecture and hyperbolic editorializations, which do not belong in legal pleadings. Id. at *4.
I'm not going to waste any more of your time here, just ask one simple question: Would you trust a law firm that doesn't know how to use a spellchecker?