ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 3/13/2021: ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. (APPLYING THIS TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)

Why the Democrats and other Progressive Groups are not using this Law(s) to confront and combat the erroneous and baseless claims made by the GOP about the 2020 Election results baffles me. (Considering the fact that, according to the evidence, the only candidate who benefitted from Bogus election results in 2016 and 2020 was Donald Trump.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. (APPLYING THIS TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION)

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's Department of Justice. U.S. REP. ADAM SCHIFF.

 David —

Throughout much of his presidency, Donald Trump attacked me constantly — literally hundreds of times on Twitter, in interviews, even during meetings with foreign heads of state.

He accused me of treason, said I should be investigated, and that someone needed to “do something” about me.

I always wondered whether his constant badgering of his Attorneys General to go after me would cause them to do so. I never imagined I would need to be concerned about such things in this country — that was the stuff of petty dictatorships, not the United States of America.

But last month, I learned that Trump’s Justice Department secretly subpoenaed records from Apple that pertained to me, one of my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, members of my staff, and family members, even a minor child. Then they got a gag order so that we would not know. This is unprecedented.

Already, the Department has agreed to an Inspector General investigation into what appears to have been a partisan effort to go after vocal critics of the president and using the Justice Department to do so.

It is shocking and appalling, and yet, not at all surprising.

For years, first Jeff Sessions and then Bill Barr badly politicized the Department, to the point where the former president could call for his allies, like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn, to have their sentences reduced or their cases dismissed entirely, and the Justice Department would do so. He also wanted to use the Department to go after his perceived political enemies.

The harm Trump did to the Justice Department, where I served with pride for six years, will last more than a decade. We must do a full assessment of the damage, and develop stronger guardrails to protect the Department’s independence in the future.

But this week’s revelations also remind me just how grateful I am to you. For your support. For your faith. And for your help during those terrible four years and since.

Thank you for always having my back, and standing with me.

Adam

STAND WITH ADAM

PAID FOR AND AUTHORIZED BY SCHIFF FOR CONGRESS

Schiff for Congress
150 E. Olive Ave.
Suite 208
Burbank, CA 91502
United States

The People’s Vaccine: What we’ve accomplished together so far. OXFAM.

 

Momentum building for a People’s Vaccine to end the COVID-19 pandemic We need a People's Vaccine: a patent-free, mass-produced vaccine that is distributed fairly and made available free of charge, to every individual, rich and poor alike, in every country. Sandra Stowe / Oxfam America   David, the People’s Vaccine Alliance is growing, thanks to you. More than 57,000 Oxfam supporters like you joined two million others from around the world in directly calling for President Biden to support a People’s Vaccine: a patent-free, mass-produced vaccine that is distributed fairly and made available free of charge, to every individual, rich and poor alike, in every country. And last month, he listened. On May 5th President Biden agreed to support a waiver of intellectual property rules at the World Trade Organization, a critical first decision toward boosting production and availability globally. Amid a global upsurge in cases, President Biden’s decision to open the vaccine recipe is a major – and essential – step forward. A step that is only possible because we made our voices heard. “This is a testament to the widespread public movement calling for an end to vaccine monopolies,” said Oxfam America President Abby Maxman. David – thanks to the support of the Oxfam community, we are one step closer to putting a permanent, decisive end to a pandemic that has left no part of the world untouched. Together, we’re also continuing our efforts to respond to the COVID-19 crisis globally and to fight poverty and injustice. Read more about Oxfam’s work to improve global access to COVID-19 vaccines. As concerns about global variants of COVID-19 emerge around the world, more and more people and their elected representatives are calling for governments and pharmaceutical companies to temporarily waive intellectual property rules for vaccines and share technology to increase vaccine production. If nothing changes, 9 out of 10 people in poor countries won’t even have access to a vaccine this year. Countries such as India – where COVID-19 is spreading rapidly and overwhelming hospitals. Despite their role as one of the main global producers of pharmaceuticals, very few of India’s 1.39 billion population have access to COVID-19 vaccine. “India is the pharmacy of the world, but it has been gasping for breath, choked by big pharmaceutical corporation monopolies.” says Oxfam India Executive Director Amitabh Behar. The recent announcement by the Biden Administration – supported by many Congressional leaders, world leaders and Nobel laureates – is a breakthrough for people in India and other countries that still lack widespread access to vaccinations. But Behar says there is still more work to be done. “We need every rich country still blocking a waiver on intellectual property rules to join President Biden and offer hope for India and many other countries that we are indeed not being left behind.” David, thanks to dedicated supporters like you, Oxfam is working to ensure that everyone has access to protection from this virus. Your commitment allows us to continue our push for a People’s Vaccine while maintaining our ongoing efforts to overcome hunger, poverty, and injustice worldwide. Donate | Contact us Oxfam 226 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts DONATE NOW

Support three key bills in Planned Parenthood’s legislative agenda. Jennifer Childs-Roshak.

 

Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts

Dear WWW.SEARCHINGFORREASON.NET On Monday, I joined dozens of advocates, legislators, and other medical professionals at the Joint Committee on Public Health to testify in support of three of the Advocacy Fund’s priority bills: An Act to require public universities to provide medication abortion, an Act relative to out-of-hospital birth access and safety, and an Act relative to Medicaid coverage for doula services. Each of these bills is key to ensuring everyone—regardless of their income, background, or insurance status—receives the timely, high-quality health care they deserve. Will you join me by submitting written testimony expressing your support for these bills? As we know, the legal right to abortion and pregnancy care doesn’t guarantee access, particularly for people of color, people with low incomes, those living in rural areas, and immigrants. That’s why each of these bills is so critical to expanding equitable access to high-quality care in Massachusetts. Here’s how: Deeply ingrained medical and systemic racism have heightened maternal mortality rates for Black and brown people, immigrants, and people with low incomes. Doula support and midwifery care can help address these disparities and save lives. Doula support ensures patients are taken care of, listened to, and advocated for throughout their pregnancies. Out-of-hospital midwifery care ensures pregnant people can have a birthing experience that meets their individual needs. Students living on more remote campuses or those who cannot travel to an off-campus health center can face numerous logistical hurdles while trying to access abortion care, including securing transportation, childcare, missing class, or taking time off work. Providing medication abortion, which is safe and has been legal in the United States for over 20 years, on college campuses would greatly improve access to care. Now that the hearing is over, it’s crucial that the Joint Committee on Public Health hear from you about why these reproductive health bills must be priorities this legislative session. Join me in fighting for reproductive freedom submitting testimony to the joint committee. Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts   In solidarity, Jennifer Childs-Roshak, MD, MBA President Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts @DrJenCR

Visit our website. Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts 1055 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215 United States