top of page
Search
  • crowsden

2022 Federal RICO Case 12/23/2022 update.

SOME NOTED FLAWS WITH ATTORNEY’S CASE

#NewtonSaidIt

The dismissal states incorrectly….

#1 Plaintiffs principally allege: NO “WE” (md20-20 watch) DID NOT…..

#1A This part is Asinine.

#2 Gibson- Ridiculous All that “I saw” crap is BS and NOT proof of anything.

#3 Jenkins-Ellis - NO PROOF provided of anything….simple comment. No follow-up with any verification.

#4 Kurt Kolb…. That’s NOT a clear or correct description of his claim (story) based on what he told/sent to me or his evidence which I forwarded to attorney. What about “ERIC” and his claim he DID NOT VOTE in Carroll Co?

#5 Who asked for video footage from Hartford and Frederick AND DID NOT GET IT? I can guess! How did they “ask” for it? What’s the relevance to a RICO claim? NONE. This was nothing more than the Sachs associates trying to be relevant. There was no identification or evidence received…..so what was the point of adding any of this to the case?

#6 CTCL purpose - that’s a broad statement and did not address sumpter haw provided by md20-20watch and claim was not adhered to proven by the evidence we provided.

#7 “No reports CTCL was used for any other purpose”?? Of course there was….SUMPTER HAW! DID BUT attorney FAILED TO comprehend that evidence, the payroll spreadsheets, the “KO” letter that we provided?? Apparently…..because all that IS A “REPORT” the court claims NOT to have been given.

#8 HOCO – not reported? Md20-20watch provided the information and purpose of 730 people getting paid?? WTH?

#9 Sachs’ group’s lunacy included here in the case with NO VALID EVIDENTURY VALUE!!

#10 “only two counties have not produced images of ballots” – THAT’S NEWS TO ME. Who did all the other counties “produce” and provide images to? To my knowledge Md2-20watch is the only entity that obtained access, associated costs invoicing and responses via PIA requests from counties across the state….and has visited warehouses (and taken photos).

Harford “made available “ to who? And “MADE AVAILABLE” IS NOT “received by”. The lawyer finally asked for a TRO to preserve the evidence “concluding Plaintiffs failed to show any imminent harm” …. COURT DENIED IT. The lawyer did not argue the point of law that permits the State to destroy election materials by a specific date that made it imperative to preserve the physical ballots “imminently” necessary. Why didn’t the lawyer explain the law and reason in his request for the TRO? …..The Lawyer then filed an Amended Complaint/Reconsideration to cure his first screw up of non-service to defendants but then padded it with a bunch of outside lunatic internet crap that was not substantive to the reason the Court permitted him the chance to provide the Amended complaint…..and of course neglected to ever mention “destruction” of election material in it.

#11 By the Lawyer’s FAILURE to include relevant details the court said it wouldn’t have changed their opinion. OF COURSE NOT, It was their “out” because it wasn’t presented – that made it easy for the Court to say that!

#12 The Lawyer’s FAILURE to state a claim and procedural flaws presenting his empty argument….

#13 MORE FAILURE BY LAWYER and misrepresented RICO claim. Cuz he added information from a FAKE “election integrity group” that was unproven BS!

#14 The lawyer’s complete failure to understand the case or the Law here…. Note: Court cannot AWARD money for this kind of case and he asked for it!!

#15 DID NOT SERVE DEFENDANTS AFTER HE WAS GIVEN A 2ND CHANCE TO COMPLY….In his case filings he only stated “generalized grievances”. Defendants cannot argue or be responsive to ‘generalities’. Must be specific….

#16 The Lawyer FAILED the “Constitutional citings” Noted failure to show INDIVIDUAL HARM…..

#17 No demonstrated “standing” in Federal Court with his claims……did not rise to Federal process which forces it to Congress or Legislature to rectify. THIS IS YET ANOTHER FLAW IN HIS APPROACH. (Read section carefully to understand the court’s opinion/point).

#18 MD20-20 NEVER ALLEGED WITH SUMPTER HAW that CTCL was used for “Candidates” - Walter must have taken that idea from Sachs and her associates. Sumpter Haw actually showed the evidence & money was used for GOTV activities which are an ILLEGAL use of funds – see “KO” letter provided. Sumpter also provided IRS 990 files from CTCL and many other documents. SEE FOR YOURSELF. md20-20watch.com/sumpter-haw

IN CONCLUSION - Dismissed because (in general) the attorney, Walter and his “helpers” were not up to the challenge and do not understand the law or the election processes despite being provided guidance and unimpeachable evidence by md20-20watch……not to mention ALL the other FACT-BASED evidence on our PUBLIC WEBSITE that we have repeatedly provided!! ALSO, they seemed to care more about the limelight and "friends" who could associate with this action than the serious nature of our corrupt election process. (Remember this case was initiated by md20-20watch and our Sumpter Haw research served as the foundation for the claim).


DISMISSED DATE DECEMBER 16, 2022…. Yet on or since then the legal “CREW” began circulating a FLYER (incorrectly citing the case name and adding some ridiculous claim about "blending integrity with science"......also it did NOT have "class action" status either) while asking for donations to a DELINQUENT CHARITY according to it's most recent registration found online with the IRS!!

*️⃣ For the record: The Lawyer has received over two thousand dollars from md20-20watch and another interested party at the beginning of the case to help with costs.

☑️ PLEASE GO TO OUR "COURTS IN COLLUSION" SECTION at

https://www.md20-20watch.com/courts-in-collusion

for details of some other interesting cases we have provided support for...NONE have been heard on the "merits" or the evidence.

47 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page