Law Matters — Episode 45
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Weber and U.S. v. Oregon, regarding election integrity and the federal government’s role in overseeing the upkeep and maintenance
U.S. v. Oregon, U.S. v. Weber — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 45
Law Matters — Episode 39
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our amicus brief in Watson v. RNC, a case regarding whether federal law requires federal elections to be held on a single “Election Day.”
Watson v. RNC — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 39
Law Matters — Episode 23
Attorneys Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our Amicus brief at the United States District Court for D.C. in the case Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, supporting the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins
Law Matters — Episode 15
Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson discuss our U.S Supreme Court amicus brief in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case challenging Illinois’ “Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute,” which purports to extend “election day” by allowing state election officials to continue receiving and counting absentee ballots for up to 14 days after the polls officially close.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections — Amicus Brief
For a discussion of this case, see Law Matters Episode 15
DeKalb County Republican Party v. Raffensperger — Supplemental Amicus Brief
Alarmed at the Secretary of State’s argument at the hearing that he has no continuing duty to ensure that the election equipment remains in compliance with the USEAC and VVSG standards, we filed a supplemental amicus brief arguing that the Georgia Constitution and statutes do impose a continuing requirement on the Secretary to ensure that elections are lawfully conducted.
Lake v. Hobbs — Amicus Brief in support of motion to recall mandate
Today, we filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of Arizona candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem’s motion to recall the mandate for fraud on the court. Our amicus brief discussed the key role the judiciary plays in protecting free and fair elections. When an elected official in charge of supervising elections is then a candidate in another election, the courts must take a particularly
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief for Maricopa County GOP
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to challenge election procedures used in Arizona in 2022. Our brief was filed for the Maricopa County Republican Committee, 10 other county GOP committees, the Nebraska and New Mexico State Republican Parties, and CLDEF. Our brief discussed how the courts have repeatedly found
Lake v. Fontes — Amicus Brief Supporting Petition for Certiorari
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kari Lake, former candidate for governor of Arizona and current candidate for U.S. Senate. Lake filed suit against Arizona to require that it follow Arizona law to ensure the integrity of elections when using electronic voting machines. Our amicus brief supported the standing of Lake to bring the challenge,
Trump v. Anderson — Amicus Brief
Today, our firm filed an amicus brief opposing an effort to remove President Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado. The challengers claim that Trump engaged in “insurrection” and thus is ineligible to be President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, in a 4-3 decision. Our amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide only the
Lake v. Hobbs — Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for Review
Today, David Hardy of Tucson, Arizona, filed an amicus brief, that our firm prepared with him, in support of Kari Lake’s Petition for Review in the Arizona Supreme Court. Our amicus brief argued that the Lake only needed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, not by the clear and convincing standard applied by the courts below. Furthermore,
People article: “Conservative Lawyer Pitched Trump Plans to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election: ‘Your Solemn Duty'”
“While Trump, 76, was at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida, on Christmas Day 2020, conservative lawyer William J. Olson promoted several extreme ideas to the then-president over the phone, The New York Times reported. Olson, who later conceded his plans, revealed that they included tampering with the Justice
Raw Story article: “Right-wing lawyer advised Trump to use ‘martial law’ in effort to overturn election”
“…around Christmas day in 2020 Donald Trump spoke on the phone with a right-wing lawyer for advice on using martial law as a mechanism to overturn the presidential election results…. ‘The lawyer, William J. Olson, was promoting extreme ideas to the president that Mr. Olson later conceded could be regarded as tantamount to declaring “martial law” and could even
The Hill article: “Conservative lawyer sent memo about plans to overturn election to Trump in December 2020′
“A conservative lawyer sent a memo in late December 2020 to then-President Trump on how he could combat the election fraud he alleged happened in that year’s presidential election and overturn the election results.
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2