Share this @internewscast.com
Patrick Byrne (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite),Stefanie Lambert (ConservativeDaily podcast/screengrab)
After Dominion Voting Systems filed a motion to disqualify “Kraken” attorney Stefanie Lambert from representing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, citing “a total disregard for this Court’s orders” by “willfully” violating a protective order to leak discovery publicly, the dispute is set to spill out at a Monday hearing in a D.C. federal courtroom.
Lambert, under indictment in Michigan and hit with a bench warrant, only recently entered the case as Byrne’s lawyer, but almost as soon as that happened Byrne’s lawyer Robert Driscoll withdrew from the case.
As Law&Crime reported days ago, Driscoll informed Dominion about a discovery “breach” also by email on March 12 claiming that Lambert shared discovery with non-party Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf and filed discovery material in public as part of her bid to combat her criminal case for alleged conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines.
Dominion’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that Lambert herself confirmed both the discovery breach and that Byrne “directed” she violate the protective order. The motion to disqualify, which seeks sanctions and accuses Lambert of violating D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), shed more light on her apparent justification for the leak: reporting purported evidence in discovery of 2020 election “criminal activity” to law enforcement.
Dominion said the documents Lambert released showed no such thing. Rather, it revealed xenophobia on the part of Lambert and Byrne, the plaintiff asserted.
“When confronted with her breach, Lambert did not claim confusion about what was or was not permitted under this Court’s Order. Rather, she claimed her contempt of court was required given that—in her warped view—the documents show evidence of ‘criminal activity,”” Dominion’s motion. “Never mind that courts have repeatedly, emphatically rejected the notion that Dominion did anything other than facilitate a secure election in 2020. Or that the documents Lambert disclosed show absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any ‘criminal activity.’ (Best Dominion can tell, Byrne and Lambert’s xenophobic conclusion is that any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel is conclusive evidence of criminal activity.)”
Writing that Lambert’s “actions should shock the conscience” as a “flagrant disregard for judicial process and the Professional Rules of Conduct,” Dominion said it was left with no choice but to seek her ouster under “these incredible circumstances.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Ex-Overstock CEO who had ‘trysts’ with Maria Butina and attended heated Trump Oval Office meeting in 2020 now faces Hunter Biden defamation suit
“Dominion further requests the Court’s guidance on a process for briefing what sanctions should befall Lambert, Byrne, and any other lawyers or individuals whose conduct, following a full accounting of those acts, warrants it. Dominion does not take lightly a request to disqualify counsel,” the motion continued, emphasizing that “she [Lambert] did not feign ignorance of her duties under the Court’s order.”
The voting machine company went on to say that the discovery breach had swift consequences for Dominion employees.
“Predictably, Lambert’s actions have led to new threats to Dominion employees, including, by way of example only, a voicemail left on Saturday, March 9, accusing Dominion of ‘breaking our elections’ and stating that ‘America should just f—ing hang all you motherf—ers,’” the filing said, also pointing to a post that pined for the arrest and hanging of Dominion’s CEO John Poulos:
When Dominion raised the prospect of sanctions, it noted that Lambert is familiar with the process, since she was initially sanctioned for her involvement as local counsel in the Michigan “Kraken” lawsuit before an appellate court reversed.
“Lambert does not, and cannot, contest the requirements set forth in the Protective Order, which itself contemplates sanctions if breached. Rather, she apparently believes that she has the unilateral authority to decide whether or not she needs to comply. As a barred, licensed attorney, Lambert is well aware that court orders are not optional (and, lest she had any doubt, the disciplinary referrals, bench warrant, and sanctions entered against her by various courts have surely apprised her of that fact),” the motion said. “The only question for this Court, then, is whether her violation warrants disqualification. It does.”
Read the Dominion motion here.
