FOLKS

I ... I'm speechless. @bradheath @questauthority did you see this? https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.285271/gov.uscourts.gand.285271.23.0.pdf

Folks, one of the basic rules of litigation practice, as a lawyer, is this: You DO NOT speak directly to an opposing party who is represented by counsel, unless SPECIFICALLY authorized to do so by that party's counsel

It's a really bright line rule. It's caused me some issues in the past, where a party my client was suing *claimed* to be represented by counsel (so I couldn't speak to them directly) but wouldn't tell me who it was (so I couldn't speak to counsel)

I had to call in an ethics consult to figure out how to address that when I needed to make a motion that required me to certify to the court that I had tried to discuss it with the opposing party

The bottom line is, that is NOT a rule you can fuck around with, for obvious reasons. We do not want lawyers leaning on an opposing party and working around their lawyers

The President's call with Raffensperger? The one he had his lawyers on?

He never cleared it with Raffensperger's litigation counsel.

Just to recap, the President's lawyer's filed a notice asking the case to be dismissed, purportedly as part of a settlement with Raffensperger and Kemp.

GA's lawyers just filed a quasi-opposition that said "yeah, dismiss us, but ...

1) They're lying to you. We haven't agreed to anything

2) They've engaged in clearly unethical conduct"

This is one hell of a bomb to drop in response to an application to dismiss a litigation against you

Someone's going to get sanctioned here.

BTW, the rest of their filing: Yeah, they lied to you.

BTW, GA may not have even caught this if not for @KlasfeldReports asking for comment on the "Settlement"