Judicial Malfeasance

Favorito v. Cooney (Fulton Co. Super. Ct.) – One of Three Discovery Cases; Access to Ballots Controlled by Same Officials Who Destroyed Records (GA)

Court Procedure, Established Fact, Georgia, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Established Fact Favorito v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343938 (Fulton Cty. Super. Ct.), was among the few post-2020 election challenge cases in which a court authorized physical access to actual election materials: on May 21, 2021, Chief Judge Brian Amero (by designation) granted petitioners’ motion to unseal and inspect and scan the November 3, 2020 general election […]

Favorito v. Cooney (Fulton Co. Super. Ct.) – One of Three Discovery Cases; Access to Ballots Controlled by Same Officials Who Destroyed Records (GA) Read More »

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Pennsylvania (PA)

Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Pennsylvania, United States /

Disputed Fact Following the 2020 election, attorneys who pursued election-challenge litigation in Pennsylvania and other states faced sanctions motions and bar discipline that created documented deterrent effects on future filings. The Rule 11 safe-harbor provision — which permits withdrawal within 21 days of a sanctions motion to avoid liability — provides a structural mechanism under

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Pennsylvania (PA) Read More »

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in California (CA)

Attorney Sanctions, California, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact John Eastman — a former law school dean, constitutional scholar, and attorney for Donald Trump — has been the subject of California State Bar disciplinary proceedings arising from his role in the effort to challenge the 2020 presidential election results. On January 26, 2023, the California Bar filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in California (CA) Read More »

Attorney Threats Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Wisconsin (WI)

Attorney Sanctions, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States, Wisconsin /

Established Fact Law Forward and Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) pursued civil litigation against Wisconsin’s ten alternate electors and the two Trump campaign attorneys who organized the elector strategy — James Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro — in Penebaker et al. v. Hitt et al., No. 22CV1178 (Dane Cty. Cir. Ct.), filed

Attorney Threats Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Wisconsin (WI) Read More »

Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence – Proactive Grievance Threat by Federal Judge (WI)

Attorney Sanctions, Established Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States, Wisconsin /

Established Fact Following the voluntary withdrawal of Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence — a lawsuit challenging the validity of 2020 election procedures in five states, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — Judge James E. Boasberg issued a show-cause order on January 7, 2021, the same day plaintiffs’ counsel filed

Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence – Proactive Grievance Threat by Federal Judge (WI) Read More »

Malicious Prosecution of Attorneys for Election Integrity Litigation in Michigan (MI)

Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States /

Disputed Fact Attorney Matt DePerno and attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila — both active in 2020 election-challenge litigation and forensic investigations of electronic voting systems — were charged with felonies arising from their involvement in unauthorized access to and testing of voting tabulators. On August 1–2, 2023, Michigan special prosecutor D.J. Hilson — appointed by Attorney

Malicious Prosecution of Attorneys for Election Integrity Litigation in Michigan (MI) Read More »

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter election Integrity Litigation in Michigan (MI)

Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, Michigan, United States /

Disputed Fact In King v. Whitmer, Judge Linda V. Parker sanctioned all nine pro-Trump attorneys — including Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood — ordering $175,250 in fee-shifting, twelve hours of mandatory legal education on pleading standards and election law, and referrals to their home bars for possible suspension or disbarment. Parker described the suit

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter election Integrity Litigation in Michigan (MI) Read More »

Attorney Plea Agreements – Coerced Admissions Under Financial Duress (GA)

Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Georgia, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact Attorneys Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, and Sidney Powell each pleaded guilty in October 2023 to reduced charges — with the RICO count dropped in every instance in exchange for probation and cooperation obligations. Ellis stated in open court that she had “failed to do my due diligence” and that “if I knew then

Attorney Plea Agreements – Coerced Admissions Under Financial Duress (GA) Read More »

Malicious Prosecution of Attorneys for Providing Legal Advice Regarding Elections (GA)

Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Georgia, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis used Georgia’s RICO statute to indict five lawyers who had provided legal advice to the Trump campaign — Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, Chesebro, and Ellis — charging specific legal-service activities, including the drafting of legal memoranda and the filing of a federal court complaint, as predicate criminal acts.[1]

Malicious Prosecution of Attorneys for Providing Legal Advice Regarding Elections (GA) Read More »

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Arizona Election Cases (AZ)

Arizona, Attorney Sanctions, Disputed Fact, Judicial Malfeasance, United States /

Disputed Fact The Maricopa County Superior Court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay opposing counsel’s fees after they sued over Maricopa County’s 2020 election procedures and sought a broader hand‑count audit. In doing so, the court labeled the lawsuit “groundless” and said it was brought for the “improper purpose” of undermining

Attorney Sanctions Used to Deter Election Integrity Litigation in Arizona Election Cases (AZ) Read More »