New Round Of Bar Charges In D.C. For 2020 Election Litigation

District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel has just charged three attorneys with misconduct in connection with several challenges to the 2020 Presidential election results.

Follow this link and click on Cases of Public Interest to access the complaints.

Charges against Julia Haller and Brandon Johnson in the Michigan litigation

Respondents' principal claim was that there was "massive election fraud" for the purpose of "illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to elect Joe Biden as President of the United States," which was carried out by a "wideranging interstate - and international - collaboration involving multiple public and private actors" which, "at bottom," was "ballot-stuffing" that was "amplified and rendered virtually invisible by computer software created and run by domestic and foreign actors for that very purpose."

Respondents claimed that the international conspiracy to perpetrate election fraud "beg[an] with the election software and hardware from Dominion Voting Systems Corporation ('Dominion') used by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers." Respondents falsely alleged that Dominion committed "computer fraud" by changing "votes for Trump to votes for Biden," and otherwise "manipulat[ing] Michigan votes." Respondents had no factual basis for making these claims.

Respondents asked the federal court to "set aside the results of the 2020 General Election" and enter an order that, among other things, would (1) enjoin Secretary Benson and Governor Whitmer from transmitting the currently certified election results to the Electoral College; (2) require Governor Whitmer "to transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election"; (3) "impound all the voting machines and software in Michigan for expert inspection" by plaintiffs; and ( 4) declare that "absentee ballot fraud occurred in violation of Constitutional rights, Election laws, and under state law."

There was no basis for the relief Respondents sought.

There are a number of alleged false statements by Respondents.

Respondent Haller is charged with violations in connection with the Georgia results

Respondent Haller and her co-counsel sued Raffensperger, Kemp, and the Members of the State Election Board, alleging "massive election fraud" that they claimed violated the Constitution, i.e., the Elections and Electors Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, which were substantially similar if not the same as the Constitutional claims that they included in the federal lawsuit filed in Michigan ( and that they would include in other federal lawsuits filed several days later in Wisconsin and Arizona). They also claimed violations of Georgia law.

Respondent Haller's claims of "massive election fraud" in the federal action in Georgia were similar if not identical to the claims that she and her cocounsel had made in the federal court action in Michigan ( as well as Wisconsin, and Arizona discussed below). They included, among other false claims, that Dominion and Smartmatic were founded by foreign oligarchs and dictators, and that Dominion Voting Systems, foreign actors from China and Iran, and others had conspired to somehow uploaded an algorithm to the state's electronic voting equipment and/or hacked the equipment to switch votes from Trump to Biden. Respondent Haller knew or should have known these claims had no basis in fact.

There are similar allegations against both Respondents in the Wisconsin and Arizona election challenges and in a Texas lawsuit brought in the name of Louis Gohmert.

A separate complaint alleges that attorney Lawrence J. Joseph engaged in like misconduct in the Texas litigation

In the complaint filed in Texas, Respondent claimed that the Republican slate of electors in Arizona, whom he referred to as "[t]he Arizona Electors," had convened in the Arizona State Capitol with the knowledge and permission of the Republican-majority Arizona Legislature and, pursuant to the requirements of applicable state laws and the Electoral Count Act, had cast their votes for Trump. Respondent made the same allegation with respect to the Republican electors in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and claimed that the Michigan Republican electors met on the grounds of the State Capitol, not in the Capitol.

Respondent knew that the claims about a "competing slate" of electors in Arizona ( as well as the slates in other "Contested States") had no factual basis and was false.

The state legislature in Arizona had not permitted, authorized, or endorsed the Republican slate of electors as competing or alternative electors for the state.

Nor had any of the state legislatures in any of the other "Contested States" permitted, authorized, or endorsed the Republican slate of electors as competing or alternative electors for their states.

Respondent Johnson was a signatory to a (denied) Emergency Application to the United States Supreme Court in which the Introduction begins

A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.

                                                                                                        Martin Luther King, Jr.

Words fail me. (Mike Frisch)