It's really the former. Otherwise, the judge will have to sort through piles of undifferentiated paper. This isn't an apology or brown-noising, it's just organizing the data so nobody is
Nope. You can't undo documented fraud.
Well, he has to prove TY had committed fraud, right? Does he have to also show that TY intended to commit fraud in order for his complaint to get off the ground?
There's no fraud on the court unless an affiant alleges that the affidavits or declarations are false.
At this point, I want to refer to every trick J. Dolf pulls as "tard ops," because there really isn't a better way to describe his constant meltdowns over things that Judge Chupp isn't too likely to care about.
That’s his signature, the “tor” they’re bitching about is literally the font that e-signing a pdf gives you, if Vic authorized or even just signed the Vic and it was edited to add the “tor” there’s Nothing wrong with it. Lemonfuhrer is just grasping at the straws. Let’s say Vic wins TCPA, if they strike that document at trial nothing stops them from reintroducing the same statement with a sworn one. its quite literally a move to try and get the case thrown out beyond the TCPA and “win” on a technicality. The subpoena will get quashed, if not retracted, because it’s ultimately contempt since there is a stay on ALL discovery.
He has to demonstrate that the notarized affidavits were not properly notarized (affiants were not there in person). You raise a good point about intent; there is an intent requirement for fraud. He knew the notarization was untrue when he signed it; I believe that is sufficient to meet the intent requirement.
Citation plz.
This has already happened, by the way. The affidavits were quickly withdrawn and replaced with functionally identical sworn declarations. Which is what makes Lemoine's sperging so funny; it doesn't matter if he gets the "fraudulent" affidavits struck for not having been signed properly, if they even were signed improperly. The affiants are clearly willing to attest to the information in the affidavits, multiple times if need be.
It is auto quashed because it was motioned within 3 days, it’s temporary until a hearing is made or the judge rules it permanently quashed.
You keep asserting a legal conclusion without any ground and then asks other to cite their reasoning. How about putting up some legal citations for your own claims first? We've been over this issue for 2 days while you still sound like a broken record and bloat up the whole thread.
I'd guess not but I'm neither American or a lawyer.
Also something mentioned on Nicks stream is the fact that they are there to talk about the TCPA, and Lemoines antics could cut into that for them. I mean I know Jackson already drank the Lemoinade but Volney never did sign that Motion. And I am not sure Volney will be too happy if Lemoines Antics fuck his clients over on the TCPA.
