I Swear To G*d (!), Twitter Makes You Stupid

this is another example why we need a separation of church & state! Why should there be a section named PRAYER on a court document?

— Silver Surfer 🇺🇸🇺🇦🌻 (@birdiefinn57) March 9, 2022

This is the language referred to, from the Petition of the State Bar against Sidney Powell.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that a judgment of professional misconduct be entered against Respondent, and that this Honorable Court determine and

impose an appropriate sanction, including an order that Respondent pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of court and all expenses associated with this proceeding. Petitioner further prays for such other and additional relief, general or specific, at law or in equity, to which it may show itself entitled.

No, I'm not going to dignify that ignorance with an explanation of the definition of "prayer."  I cite this just to point out this is a very simple petition, based on two actions.  In short review, 8 persons filed complaints with the State Bar of Texas, which prompted this action by the Bar. The bar alleges professional misconduct, which is a term of art in such proceedings (so is "prayer," so don't bog down on words being used in ways you aren't used to).

I'm going to paste some of the petition because it's that simple and to the point (I'm impressed, actually.).  Here is the "Factual Background":

Beginning in or about November of 2020 Respondent filed multiple federal lawsuits in different jurisdictions (including the District Court of Arizona, the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin) alleging, inter alia, election fraud had occurred in the national presidential election in 2020. Respondent had no reasonable basis to believe the lawsuits she filed were not frivolous. Further, the filing of these lawsuits violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

During the course of the lawsuits, Respondent took positions that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of the cases and unreasonably delayed the resolution of the matters, including, but not limited to, Respondent’s failure to dismiss the lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Michigan when her requested relief was moot.

In the lawsuit styled Pearson v. Kemp, Case No. 1:20-CV-4809 filed by Respondent in the Northern District of Georgia, Respondent attached a certificate from the Secretary of State that she purported to the Court was “undated.” The certificate was altered to remove the date, and Respondent’s statement that the certificate was undated was false.

Respondent was sanctioned by the Eastern District of Michigan for her misconduct.

That's it.  These actions, the Bar alleges, violate specific provisions the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar.  I should explain here that the Texas State Bar has Ethical Guidelines, which lawyers violate at risk of censure (basically) by the Bar, and Disciplinary Rules, which are enforceable at law.  Violate the EG's, the Bar writes a nasty report about you and tells you to straighten up (at worst).  Violate the DR's, the Bar goes to court against you.  The DR's, in other words, have teeth.

Now, does this mean Powell will be disbarred?  I doubt it.  This is hardly my area of expertise, but I've never seen a lawyer disbarred (I still get the Texas Bar Journal, the "house organ" of the State Bar.  They post brief reports of all EG violations they find, and all disciplinary actions taken under the DR's.  My impression is you have to screw with the client's money (escrow funds are usually the problem) to get disbarred.  Nothing like that is alleged here.

What will the punishment be?  I have no idea, truthfully.   The Court could decide to disbar Powell, based on serious misrepresentations to the courts like that certificate she allegedly altered and lied to the court about.  We'll see.  But I'm impressed that the State Bar kept their pleading to the bare minimum, and didn't even ask for specific disciplinary action (yet).  What they say in court will merely add flesh to these bones, but that strikes me as the better practice.

(Oh, I can't stand it.  "Prayer" is not an exclusively "religious" word.  I means to ask for something.  In law, it means to ask the court, respectfully, to grant the relief requested.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It's a holdover from the English practice and from older uses of the word which have dropped away in daily speech.  That's all.)

And comes now her defense:

"I look forward to presenting our evidence in court. It will likely be the first time any judge in the country has heard testimony from one of our witnesses. It will be eye-opening to the public," Powell said.

Yeah, haven’t heard that one before. It seems perfectly clear Sidney Powell is seriously delusional and shouldn’t be representing herself in traffic court. I’m not expert enough to know if the court can suspend her license sua sponte in this action, but it’s clear from the public record that she shouldn’t be representing anyone in any capacity as a lawyer.