About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Sunday, January 22, 2023

RUSSIAGATE PART 7: THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PARTS 1-4.

 

PART 1.

Let me make one thing clear: I am not a Statistician/Mathematician. I try to stick to specific
principles when discussing TOPICS SUCH AS MORAL THEORY, POLITICS, THE LEGAL SYSTEM, RELIGION, AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. USING THE DISCIPLINES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING, I TRY TO AVOID USING NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES TO MAKE A POINT. I BELIEVE THAT CONFLICTS ARISING IN THESE SUBJECTS SHOULD NEVER BE DECIDED ON THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAPPEN TO FALL ON ONE SIDE OF AN ISSUE.  I USE NUMBERS TO SUPPORT AN OPINION, NOT MAKE ONE.


However, the Election Totals have, for me, raised a serious red flag. These Numbers make little sense, and a COMPREHENSIVE STUDY/INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE DONE. NOW.

Here is how I came to this opinion;

Numbers FOR MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN-  The 2012, 2016 Presidential Elections.

IN 2016 HILLARY CLINTON WON THE TOTAL POPULAR VOTE BY ABOUT 3 MILLION VOTES, AND PERCENT OF TOTAL. 48.1%- 46%. THE MEDIA REPORTS THESE NUMBERS FREQUENTLY. HOWEVER, HERE ARE SOME NUMBERS THAT ARE RARELY MENTIONED, IF AT ALL.

2008- Winner: BARACK OBAMA.
NUMBERS;52.9% of the Vote. Total Votes-  69,498,516. 365 Electoral Votes.Carried-28 States+DC.

Opponent- JOHN MCCAIN.
NUMBERS;45.7%. of the Vote. Total Votes- 59,948,323. 173 Electoral Votes.Carried-22 States.


2012- Winner:  BARACK OBAMA.
NUMBERS;51.1% of the Vote. Total Votes- 65,915,795. 332 Electoral Votes.Carried-26 States+DC.

Opponent- MITT ROMNEY.
NUMBERS; 47.2% of the Vote.  Total Votes- 60,933,504. 206 Electoral Votes.Carried- 24 States.

2016- Winner: DONALD TRUMP.
NUMBERS;46% of Vote.  Total Votes-  62,979,636.  306 Electoral Votes. Carried.- 30 States.

Opponent- HILLARY CLINTON.
NUMBERS;48.1% of Vote.  Total Votes- 65,844, 610. 232 Electoral Votes.- 20 States+DC.

OBSERVATION 1- IN TERMS OF PERCENT OF VOTE, MITT ROMNEY HAD A HIGHER
PERCENT THAN DONALD TRUMP. 47.2% to 46%.

OBSERVATION 2-  BARACK OBAMA % OF TOTAL VOTES IN 2008 AND 2012 WAS OVER 50%, (52.9%, 51.1%), YET DONALD TRUMP, WITH 46%, CARRIED MORE STATES (30) THAN BARACK OBAMA DID IN EITHER ELECTION. (28,26).

OBSERVATION 3.
WISCONSIN- IN 2012, A TOTAL OF 3,028,651 VOTES WERE CAST FOR BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. IN 2016 THAT NUMBER
REDUCED TO 2,787,820, OR -240,831.

WHILE THE REPUBLICAN NUMBERS WERE VERY CLOSE
2012 TOTAL- 1,407,966 TO 2016-1,405,289 FOR A TOTAL REDUCTION OF 2,677 VOTES.

THE DEMOCRATS TOTALS WERE- 2012 TOTAL- 1,620,985 TO 2016 TOTAL- 1,382,536
OR A REDUCTION OF 238,449.

OBSERVATION 4.
PENNSYLVANIA- 2012 ELECTION- TOTAL DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN VOTES- 5,670,708.
2016 TOTAL- 5,897,174. A DIFFERENCE OF +226,466.
DEMOCRATS- 2012 TOTAL VOTES: 2,990,274 2016 TOTAL VOTES- 2,926,441= LOSS OF 63,833.
REPUBLICANS- 2012 TOTAL VOTES- 2,680,434 2016 TOTAL VOTES- 2,970,733= +290,299.

OBSERVATION 5.
MICHIGAN- 2012 TOTAL DEM/REP. VOTES: 4,679,825.
BREAKDOWN- 2,564,569 DEMOCRAT, 2,115,256 REPUBLICAN.

MICHIGAN- 2016 TOTAL DEM/REP. VOTES- 4,548,382.
BREAKDOWN- REPUBLICANS- 2,279,543
                             DEMOCRATS- 2,268,839
A REDUCTION OF 131,443 TOTAL VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016.

DEMOCRATS- LOST 295,730 VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016.
REPUBLICANS- GAINED 164,287.

REMEMBER, THESE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN ALL THREE STATES OCCURRED FOR A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE WHOSE % OF TOTAL VOTES NATIONWIDE WAS LESS THAN
HIS PREDECESSOR. FURTHER, THE NUMBER OF VOTERS CASTING THEIR BALLOTS FOR EITHER THE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS WENT DOWN IN MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016.

TO BE CONTINUED...?





THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PART 2.



In part 1 , I laid out statistics that raise questions about the Validity of the election results in 3 States; MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN. These States, and their Electoral Votes,
is where the outcome of the election rested. We will look at these results more closely, but first...

Hillary, Clinton, President, Woman, Leader, Leadership

A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND INFO.

As I related in Part 1, Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote by about 3 Million Votes, (2.87 Million). In the end, her percentage of the National Vote was 48.06% to Trumps 45.97%. TOTALS: CLINTON- 65,844,610, TRUMP- 62,979,636.

It is True that Trump accumulated 2.05 Million more votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012.
However, there were almost 8 Million more votes cast for President in 2016 than there were in 2012. 
(2012- 129,085,409     2016- 137,045,863)
This is why Trumps 45.97% was less than Romneys 47.20%.

Yes, Hillary Clinton did not get as many votes as Barack Obama did in 2012.
Here is the difference: Obama- 65,915,795, Clinton- 65,844,610. A Difference of 71,185 Votes.
These Numbers, in practical terms, are a wash. The Difference is so miniscule, that the totals 
would be considered one and the same. Like Romney/Trump, the increase in the total number of ballots from 2012- 2016 caused the difference in Percent of Votes Received Nationwide.

2012: Obama- 51.06%
2016: Clinton- 48.06%

So between 2012 and 2016, the Democrats saw a Decrease of 3%, the Republicans 1.23%
In the end, the Republicans increased their Percentage of the National Vote by less than 2%

These are hardly the Numbers of a POLITICAL REVOLUTION. IN REALITY, THERE WAS
NO REAL REJECTION OF HILLARY CLINTON, NOR A VAST AMOUNT OF INCREASED SUPPORT FOR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP.

THIS IS NOT THE REAL STORY. THE REALITY OF THE 2016 ELECTION LIES ELSEWHERE...
STAY TUNED...





Presidential, 2016, American Flag











Now, you might might be thinking: "Well, what about the other States? I bet there were big changes elsewhere, and your just ignoring them."

Keep in mind that I have been focusing on MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN, BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING VICTORY IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.  HOWEVER, I HAVE PURPOSEFULLY AVOIDED 3 OTHER STATES; FLORIDA, IOWA, AND OHIO, JUST TO SEE IF I WOULD GET ANY REACTION. I DID'NT, SO IN A FUTURE POST THE ANALYSIS WILL INCLUDE THESE STATES, BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

However, there are 44 other States. How did the TRUMP "REVOLUTION" AFFECT THEM?

Well, this was suppose to be a resurgence of "CONSERVATIVE IDEALS." In fact, Donald Trump
ran on A Mix of EXTREMIST BELIEFS THAT PROMOTED MISOGYNISTIC, XENOPHOBIC, AND RACIST ATTITUDES AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OFTEN UNDER A MASK OF RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY. HOWEVER, THESE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS SHOULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP JUST BECAUSE THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL IDEALS. TRUMP WENT FAR BEYOND WHAT TRUE CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE.

To be fair, let us start by looking at the 24 States who voted REPUBLICAN IN 2012 AND 2016.

Now, with Traditionally Blue States like MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WISCONSIN SEEING GIGANTIC SHIFTS IN VOTER SUPPORT, RESULTING IN REPUBLICAN "VICTORIES", TRADITIONALLY RED STATES SHOULD HAVE SEEN EVEN LARGER TURNOUTS AND TRIUMPHS IN THEIR STATE ELECTIONS.

Uh, No.

In the case of the 24 States, TRUMP CARRIED A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE REPUBLICAN VOTE IN 12 STATES, ROMNEY IN 11, WITH ONE STATISTICAL TIE.

This is a list of every STATE that Voted for the Republican Candidate for President in 2012 and 2016.
It is followed by which Candidate, ( ROMNEY- 2012, TRUMP- 2016), Received a higher % of the Republican Vote for that State.

ALABAMA- TRUMP: 62.08%.- 60.55%                      
ALASKA-  ROMNEY: 54.80%- 51.28%
ARIZONA- ROMNEY: 53.65%- 48.67%
ARKANSAS- TIE- 60.57%
GEORGIA- ROMNEY: 53.30%- 50.77%
IDAHO- ROMNEY: 64.53%- 59.26%
INDIANA- TRUMP: 56.82%- 54.13%
KANSAS- ROMNEY: 59.71%- 56.65%
KENTUCKY- TRUMP: 62.5%- 60.49%
LOUISIANA- TRUMP: 58.09%- 57.78%
MISSISSIPPI- TRUMP: 57.94%- 55.28%
MISSOURI- TRUMP: 56.77%- 53.76%
MONTANA- TRUMP: 56.17%- 55.35%
NEBRASKA- ROMNEY: 59.80%- 58.75%
NORTH CAROLINA- ROMNEY: 50.39%- 49.83%
NORTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 62.96%- 58.32%
OKLAHOMA- ROMNEY: 66.77%- 65.32%
SOUTH CAROLINA- TRUMP: 54.94%- 54.56%
SOUTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 61.53%- 57.89%
TENNESSEE- TRUMP: 60.72%- 59.48%
TEXAS- ROMNEY: 57.17%- 52.23%
UTAH- ROMNEY: 72.79%- 45.54%
WEST VIRGINIA- TRUMP: 68.63%- 62.30%
WYOMING- ROMNEY: 68.64- 67.40%

UTAHS LARGE MARGIN BETWEEN
2012- 72.79%, 2016- 45.54% COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY THE 21.54% EARNED BY EVAN MCMULLEN (IND.)
IN 2016.

In the other 23 States, the LARGEST INCREASE in percent of the vote from
2012 ----- 2016: WEST VIRGINIA: + 6.33%.

THE LARGEST DECREASE 2012-----2016: IDAHO: - 5.27%.

REMEMBER THESE ARE "RED STATES." THERE ARE NO CHANGES,
STATISTICALLY, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED BEYOND NORMAL
PARAMETERS. DONALD TRUMPS CANDIDACY CAUSED NO UNUSUAL
CHANGES IN THE % OF PRO-REPUBLICAN VOTERS WHO TURNED OUT
FOR THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

HMMM!




THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PART 4.


Business, Idea, Style, Concept, Goals


Now that we have seen the % of Vote Totals when examining the results of the 24 states that voted Republican in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections, let us now turn to the 20 States that voted Democrat, and see how the REPUBLICAN PARTY PERFORMED.

HERE ARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES % OF TOTAL VOTES FROM THESE STATE ELECTION RETURNS.

STATE                                           2012                                   2016

CALIFORNIA.                            37.12 %                              31.62%

COLORADO.                              46.13%                               43.25%

CONNECTICUT.                        40.73%                                40.93%

DELAWARE.                              39.98%                                41.92%

HAWAII.                                     27.84%                                29.44%

ILLINOIS.                                  40.73%                                 38.73%

MAINE.                                      40.98%                                  44.87%

MARYLAND.                              35.90%                                 33.91%

MASSACHUSETTS.                   37.51%                                 32.81%

MINNESOTA.                            44.96%                                  44.92%

NEVADA.                                   45.68%                                  45.50%
                    
NEW HAMPSHIRE.                    46.40%                                  46.61%

NEW JERSEY.                           40.59%                                  41.00%

NEW MEXICO.                         42.84%                                  40.04%

NEW YORK.                             35.17%                                  36.15%

OREGON.                                42.15%                                  39.09%

RHODE ISLAND.                     35.24%                                  38.90%

VERMONT.                              30.97%                                  29.76%

VIRGINIA.                               47.28%                                  44.43%

WASHINGTON.                       41.29%                                 38.07%


From this list we find the following:

That Republican Party % of the Statewide Vote was
as follows:

12 States had a higher % of the Republican Vote in 2012. (MITT ROMNEY.)
 8 States had a higher % of the Republican Vote in 2016.  (DONALD TRUMP.)

These numbers provide more Insight in Evaluating the Degree to which
Donald Trumps Candidacy influenced the outcome of the 2016 election.

EXAMINING THE RESULTS OF THE 20 STATES THAT VOTED DEMOCRAT
FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012 AND 2016, WE ALSO FIND THAT;

THE BIGGEST GAIN FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BETWEEN 2012-2016:

MAINE,  40.98%- 44.87%, OR AN INCREASE OF 3.89%

THE BIGGEST LOSS: CALIFORNIA- 37.12%- 31.62% OR A DECREASE OF 5.5%

In Fact, if we take all 44 States together: 24 States that Voted Republican, and the 20 that Voted
Democrat in both the 2012 and 2016 Elections:

In 23 States the Republicans had better results with Mitt Romney as the Candidate.*
In 20 States they had better results with Donald Trump as the Candidate.*
  1 Statistical Tie.*

* %  of  VOTES FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EACH STATE.

It is clear, from these numbers, that the claim of Donald Trump mobilizing vast numbers of
dissatisfied Voters to go the polls does not hold up, at least from the results of the 44 States that Voted either DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN IN BOTH ELECTIONS.

However, was the "OUTCOME" OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DETERMINED
BY THE RESULTS FOUND IN THE 6 STATES THAT VOTED REPUBLICAN IN 2016,
SHIFTING THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE THEY SUPPORTED
IN 2012.

How important are these 6 States? You need 270 Electoral Votes to win the Presidency. Here are
the Electoral Votes for these States; FLORIDA- 29, PENNSYLVANIA- 20, OHIO- 18,
MICHIGAN- 16, WISCONSIN- 10, IOWA- 6.

Now that we have seen the results from the other 44 States, what do the NUMBERS TELL US ABOUT
THE RESULTS IN THESE STATES?  ARE THERE "IRREGULARITIES" THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED?  SHOULD THE RESULTS FROM ANY, SOME, OR ALL OF THESE STATES BE CALLED INTO QUESTION?

TO BE CONTINUED...










Saturday, January 21, 2023

THIS IS WHAT PASSES FOR CHRISTIANITY FOR TRUMPIANS. A "MAN OF GOD?" I DOUBT IT.

GIVEN WHAT I DEAL WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS, VERY LITTLE SHOCKS ME...

...BUT THIS

 LINK: https://twitter.com/i/status/1616908597937557505

I HAVE A COMMENT: VILE AND DISGUSTING. USING A MEMORIAL 

SERVICE FOR DONALD TRUMPS POLITICAL AMBITIONS.


                                               NEVER WAS A PICTURE MORE APPROPRIATE.


TWO ARTICLES: The five hardest hits from a judge’s scathing ruling against former President Trump. A perfect example of: "ABUSE OF PROCESS..."

THE BELOW ARTICLE IS FROM THE "THE HILL." ONLINE MAGAZINE


Former President Trump suffered yet another legal setback on Thursday, when a U.S. district judge ordered him and his lead attorney to pay almost $1 million in costs and fees to numerous defendants, including Hillary Clinton, after a Trump suit the judge found to be without merit. 

The following day, the former president’s legal team withdrew a separate action against New York Attorney General Letitia James before the same judge. 

The Thursday judgement came in response to a suit Trump had filed in March 2022 against Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former FBI figures Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and many others. 

At its core, Trump accused the defendants of “a malicious conspiracy” against him, especially with regards to allegations of Russian collusion.  

Taking the lead in the case was Trump attorney Alina Habba. 

The judge, Donald M. Middlebrooks, was nominated to his current position by President Clinton in 1997. 

Middlebrooks’s 46-page ruling was scathing enough to put even Trump on the back foot. 

Here are the five sharpest jabs from the bench against the former president. 

“This case should never have been brought. It’s inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. … Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative.”  

There was no warming-up or throat-clearing from Judge Middlebrooks, who began his ruling with the words above. 

He went on to note the background of the case and how rapidly Clinton and other defendants had “identified substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws” in the Trump team’s original claim. 

The judge added that an amended complaint had been filed by the Trump team in June 2022, three months after the inception of the case. The new and supposedly improved version “failed to cure any of the defects” in the original filing, Middlebrooks writes. 

Middlebrooks intriguingly also cites a September 2022 interview Habba gave to Sean Hannity in which she claimed Trump encouraged her to drop the case at an earlier stage.  

“And I said no, we have to fight,” Habba told Hannity. 

She may come to rue that decision. 

“Here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose. Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer.” 

This is a key passage in Middlebrooks’s rationale for why Trump personally should be sanctioned. 

The judge cites other instances where Trump pursued cases against real or perceived adversaries including Twitter and CNN. 

Middlebrooks’s point is that Trump deserves to have harsh treatment meted out to him because — in the judge’s view — the former president has a long record of trying to weaponize or clog up the legal system to besmirch or intimidate opponents, or for publicity purposes. 

“The 819 paragraphs of the 186-page Amended Complaint are filled with immaterial, conclusory facts not connected to any particular cause of action. Consider the incendiary charge that Mr. Comey, the Director of the FBI, conspired with Ms. Clinton to maliciously prosecute him. Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Trump was never prosecuted, examine the allegations in the Amended Complaint pertaining to Mr. Comey. … 

[They] do not allege that Mr. Comey initiated an investigation of Mr. Trump, much less a prosecution. And the implausible claim that Mr. Comey conspired with Ms. Clinton, given the impact of his announcements on her 2016 campaign, not only lacks substance but is categorically absurd.” 

In addition to his complaints about Trump trying to use the legal system for extra-legal purposes, Middlebrooks is evidently irked by the approach of the former president’s legal team. 

The section about Comey goes into considerable detail about what Middlebrooks clearly considers pointless meanderings — including details of Trump’s firing of Comey as director of the FBI. 

The shoulder-shrugging dismissal of any cooperation between Comey and the Clinton campaign is alluding to events late in the 2016 campaign.  

Comey announced in the final days of that contest that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State in President Obama’s administration.  

Comey’s public disclosure is to this day blamed by some Clinton partisans for her narrow loss in the election. 

“The plaintiff consistently misrepresented and cherry-picked portions of public reports and filings to support a false factual narrative. Often the report or filing actually contradicted his allegations. It happened too often to be accidental; its purpose was political, not legal. Factual allegations were made without any evidentiary support in circumstances where falsity is evident.”  

Middlebrooks here cites claims from the Trump team including the assertion that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report “went on to exonerate” Trump from any suggestion of Russian collusion. 

In fact, as Middlebrooks notes, Mueller’s conclusions were a good deal more nuanced and equivocal than this.  

“While perhaps acceptable as a cable news talking point, that allegation [of exoneration] is neither an accurate nor fair reading of the Mueller Report,” he writes. 

“Despite an affidavit from Mr. Dolan saying he lived in Virginia, and the fact that service upon him occurred there, the Amended Complaint claimed he lived in New York. The Plaintiff’s lawyers’ excuse: There are a lot of Dolans—some of them live in New York.” 

This passage refers to Charles Dolan, a Democratic strategist who was also in the Trump team’s sights. 

But the judge’s point is emblematic of a kind of weary exasperation that permeates his ruling. 

In another section, he draws casual attention to a typo in one Trump team filing, which laments false allegations of “Russian collision.” 

ABOVE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE Of:

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA. ( JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES). I'VE OUTLINED CERTAIN KEY POINTS.- DAVID.


An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.


The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: (1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings.[[1] Abuse of process can be distinguished from malicious prosecution, in that abuse of process typically does not require proof of malice, lack of probable cause in procuring issuance of the process, or a termination favorable to the plaintiff, all of which are essential to a claim of malicious prosecution.[2] "Process," as used in this context, includes not only the "service of process," i.e. an official summons or other notice issued from a court, but means any method used to acquire jurisdiction over a person or specific property that is issued under the official seal of a court.3] Typically, the person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.



Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.


Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity. Moreover, the mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process have gone beyond merely filing a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.


Declining to expand the tort of malicious prosecution, a unanimous California Supreme Court in the case of Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker, 47 Cal. 3d 863, 873 (1989) observed: "While the filing of frivolous lawsuits is certainly improper and cannot in any way be condoned, in our view the better means of addressing the problem of unjustified litigation is through the adoption of measures facilitating the speedy resolution of the initial lawsuit and authorizing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous or delaying conduct within that first action itself, rather than through an expansion of the opportunities for initiating one or more additional rounds of malicious prosecution litigation after the first action has been concluded."[1]

TRUMP HELD ACCOUNTABLE. AGAIN.

"RED HERRING" WHERE ARE YOU?

ABBOTT SAYS THIS: #OperationLoneStar continues to disrupt cartel activity at our southern border.

We’ve made over 23K criminal arrests, seized over 356M deadly fentanyl doses, & bused over 16,600 migrants to sanctuary cities. Texas is stepping up to secure our border.


...and shows you this.



Wow, Three men crossing a field. How Compelling. Just another "Red Herring",
this time from the Morally Bankrupt REICHSFUEHRER OF TEXAS.