the lawyer. absolutely. in this indication the judge. wow, okay. the word wow only rarely comes up in trial transcripts and never from the judge. those lawyers could be in some trouble. they could ultimately face disbarment over their actions in that trump case in michigan. but here s something else to watch. tomorrow morning, a whole different slate of pro-trump lawyers are going to face their own totally separate sanctions hearing before a totally separate federal judge, this time in colorado. these are pro-trump lawyers who filed their own lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election. they brought their suit against the voting machine company dominion and facebook and facebook s ceo and his wife, and election officials in georgia, michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin. they were all in on it together. the deep plot to rig the election. the best part is that these lawyers filed this suit as a class action. they named as their class of plaintiffs all 160 million
because of the judge s ascertainment. the judge called the pieces of evidence they presented for this lawsuit, quote, fantastical and, quote, obviously questionable if not false on their face. in one of the affidavits they tried to submit as part of this case, a poll watcher said he felt the way ballots were being handled was, quote, perplexing. in the hearing on monday, the judge asks the potted plant lawyer, quote, and you think being perplexed by an observation is sufficient enough to get into court? it s sufficient to support an affidavit? do you feel that that constitutes evidentiary support, sir? the lawyer: absolutely. in this case the judge: wow, okay. the word wow only rarely comes up in trial transcripts and never from the judge. those lawyers could be in some trouble. they could ultimately face disbarment over their actions in that trump case in michigan. but here s something else to watch. tomorrow morning, a whole different slate of pro-trump
be consequences for these lawyers, for using her courtroom to push lies and conspiracy theories with only made up lies. i say it s made up because of the judge ascertainment. the judge called the pieces of evidence, quote, fantastical and obviously questionable if not falls on their face. in one of the affidavits they tried to submit, a poll watchers said that the way that the ballots was being humbled was perplexing. in the hearing on monday the judge as the potted plant lawyer quote, and you think being perplexed by an observation is sufficient enough to get into court? it s sufficient to support an affidavit? do you feel like that constitutes evidentiary support sir? the lawyer, absolutely. in this case the judge, wow, okay. the word while only really comes up in trial transcripts and never from the judge. those lawyers could be in some
the long lasting scent of gain flings. now that i have a better sense of how george collazo was murdered, i start to collect more documents like trial transcripts and court filings in the case against richard rosario. there are thousands of pages, and i need to have a good sense of them. so i ve read through a lot of this paper work and here s what i know for sure. the case against rosario was based solely on those two eyewitnesses. there was no forensic evidence, no physical evidence against him, and there was no murder weapon ever recovered. i also find out here that rosario was telling me the truth about at least two things. he did turn himself in that
of documents, police reports, trial transcripts, court filings, piecing the story together for ourselves. it all comes down to those four eyewitnesses who identified velazquez at trial, drug dealer, augustus brown, brothers philip and robert jones and heroin addict, lorenzo wood ford. with hidden cameras rolling, we found woodford in hartford, connecticut. he s one of those witnesses that fled right after the shooting. i went to another friend of mine s house. i stayed there, i was just so scared. police did not locate woodford until five days later when he was brought in to view a lineup. at that lineup, he did not identify velazquez. in fact, police reports quote him as not positive about anyone. there is more. woodford admitted he was high on heroin during the crime. i ve been going to jail all my life. but then it all changed. at trial, woodford testified he was sure velazquez was the gunman.