After a hearing on Dominion Voting Systems‘ demand that she be disqualified from representing ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in the defamation lawsuit for leaking discovery, a Michigan “Kraken” lawyer is trying to put out a new fire.
Stefanie Lambert responded Tuesday to a Dominion complaint from last week, which claimed that Byrne violated a protective order in the case hours after the hearing, by “us[ing] X to further disseminate the impermissibly leaked documents.”
Lambert pushed back on the filing by saying her client had done “nothing more than the reposting of information that had already been posted” and did not violate the court’s orders because Byrne “did not disseminate further information beyond that which the Court has already taken account of in its previous orders.”
Last week, Dominion lawyer Davida Brook told U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya that Byrne had reposted content that contained a “string of posts promoting false claims” and screenshots of leaked discovery.
“Yes, it does seem like they made many important concessions today,” Byrne wrote in response, commenting on how he thought the disqualification hearing went. “Methinks their lawyers are more familiar with civil practice than criminal law.”
Lambert, now facing two election-related felony indictments in Michigan, found herself in hot water as soon as she entered the case in March. Robert Driscoll, Patrick Byrne’s attorney at the time, told Dominion that Lambert had shared discovery with Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, an election-denying sheriff who was allegedly given “username-and-password access” to “more than 1 million documents” from discovery, documents the sheriff cited as “evidence” of crimes in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Lambert previously justified the protective order breach by saying she forwarded evidence of 2020 election “criminal activity” to law enforcement, claiming that emails written in “Serbian and foreign languages” were “evidence of criminal violations” involving “top level Dominion employees directing and tasking foreign nationals to remotely access voting machines utilized in the United States during the November 3, 2020 election.”
Dominion countered that there was, indeed, a protective order violation, and that Lambert’s claims were based on the “xenophobic conclusion […] that any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel is conclusive evidence of criminal activity.” As a result, Dominion pushed for her disqualification from representing Byrne and complained a second time last week about his repost of leaked discovery.
On Tuesday, Lambert, citing the “freedom to post information on the internet,” said there was no issue with Byrne’s repost on X since “truth is an absolute defense” in a defamation case.
“Further, Dominion and its counsel enjoy free reign to speak about the lawsuits and elections anytime they choose, and their websites and profiles read like a play-by-play dissemination of information about this and other lawsuits,” Lambert wrote. “The freedom to post information on the internet is enjoyed by all Americans under the First Amendment, and cannot be stymied by one side or the other, especially in a case of this magnitude, and even more where the truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims that have been brought against Dr. Byrne.”
The post Defending ‘freedom to post’ on the internet, ‘Kraken’ lawyer says Dominion is wrong about ex-Overstock CEO violating order again first appeared on Law & Crime.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Matt Naham
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://lawandcrime.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.