Stefanie Lambert ordered to stop leaking Dominion discovery

Share this @internewscast.com

Patrick Byrne (AP Photo/Jim Rassol), Stefanie Lambert during a July 2021 interview (Gateway Pundit/screengrab)

The local counsel in the failed Michigan “Kraken” lawsuit which sought to overturn the 2020 election outcome has been ordered, along with ex-Overstock CEO client Patrick Byrne, to “immediately desist” from leaking Dominion Voting Systems’ discovery material and to preserve documents as the court weighs a motion to disqualify.

Stefanie Lambert appeared in a Washington, D.C., federal courtroom on Monday for a hearing days after Dominion’s lawyers learned, through Patrick Byrne’s then lawyer Robert Driscoll, that discovery documents were posted on the internet and filed publicly as part of Lambert’s bid to fight her Michigan indictment for an alleged conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines. Dominion promptly notified U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that a protective order in the billion-dollar defamation lawsuit had been “willfully” violated.

While Lambert claimed to have a right to report supposed evidence of “criminal activity” to law enforcement, namely Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, Dominion replied that the discovery materials showed no such evidence.

“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 said. “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.)”

Dominion lawyers, calling her actions a “flagrant disregard for judicial process and the Professional Rules of Conduct,” then requested her ouster from the case, emphasizing that Lambert “did not feign ignorance of her duties under the Court’s order.”

This dispute spilled out into court on Monday, but because Lambert failed to appear for a March 7 court date in her criminal case, prompting a state judge to issue a bench warrant, she was arrested by U.S. Marshals after the D.C. hearing ended.

Lambert was released from custody the next day, however, after promising to drive home to Michigan and turn herself in, the Associated Press reported.

The same day, U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya took steps to “preserve the status quo,” issuing an order for Lambert and her client to “immediately desist from sharing, distributing, providing access to or discussing any discovery material” connected to Dominion’s lawsuits against Byrne, “Kraken” lawyer Sidney Powell, former NYC Mayor and Donald Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and One America News.

Upadhyaya further ordered Lambert to “undertake every reasonable effort” to remove publicly filed discovery documents from her Michigan criminal docket and to file them under seal instead, to preserve her notes, and to “preserve all documents and communications relating to the issues raised by Dominion’s motion, including but not limited to, the release of any Dominion Litigation Documents in this case to any other entity or individual.” And that goes for “any entity or individual with whom she shared a copy of such notes,” too, whether that’s Byrne, Stephanie Scott, Russell Newman, or otherwise.

Lambert must confirm by 5 p.m. on Wednesday that she and Byrne have complied.

From the outset, Dominion was clear that Lambert could face sanctions given the clear language of the protective order: “[R]eleasing, leaking, or otherwise disclosing Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material to persons or entities not entitled to such Discovery Material under this Order, the Court will have authority to impose sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).”

Lambert has reportedly claimed she’s in this predicament simply because “I just know too much” and “I have too much evidence.”

Read the order here.