Kari Lake’s lawyers hit with bar complaints

Capt Gregory Prickett In this case, they should.

The people bringing this case even specifically said they are doing it so everyone will be afraid to handle election fraud.

When your entire purpose is to silence your political opponent, that is straight SLAPP.

I am not saying I agree with Lake (or Trump). But I do not think they should be locked out of the courts, either.

MSgt Steve Sweeney I have reviewed the opinion. Again, not surprising given his political background. My argument is not whether or not the caee should have been won by Kari, I agree it should not have been. I do however argue that the legal team had legitimate reason for thier claim. They failed to prove it in court, but they had legitimate claims. How do I know this...because I reviewed the claim that was allowed to proceed into court. They argued two main claims. One being that the issues of malfunction of the scanner/printers at voting stations was intentional and the other being that those malfunctions caused votes to be missed or counted twice and reduced available voting stations to would be republican voters. We know there were in fact issues with the scanners/printers and we know there we effected and closed voting stations due to it... that is a fact agreed upon by both sides... thier argument that it was done intentionally is what they had to prove, they failed to do so. I do not believe, still after your voiced opinion or that of a left leaning judge that they deserve bar review or bar level sanctions. I believe they, in good faith, felt they could argue thier case and win. They just couldn't prove it in court...which like it or not, is how the legal system should work

MSgt Steve Sweeney your assumptions about me and my political beliefs says everything I already knew about you.

Your information is accurate as far as rules 11 and 28, I agree that information is factual...however I would argue when the judge did not allow those claims to be presented during the trial, there is no violation. They did not present those in the trial.. they present the two claims at trial that I mentioned already. There claims of internet interference where not allowed in the claim. That was ruled on prior to the actual trial. There is no violation, in my opinion, but again I am not a lawyer.

However, I concede to you... I should have never engaged you at all... you do this to me all the time... you are certainly the smartest person on RP... you cam never argue a point without making it personal attacks... seems to fit the rest of your political party views... make it person when some one disagrees with you... (see I can assume things about you and be a snarky as well for absolutely no good reason or cause)

MSgt Steve Sweeney fair enough. Never felt attacked...just don't care to argue by personal perceptions. I will be curious to see how it plays out in the courts. Best of everything to you, sir!

MSgt Steve Sweeney we are nothing if we aren't human...