Sign New York Affidavit of Service Now

Document type sign affidavit of service new york now

lynn wood filed an affidavit because he wants to still be an attorney out of the eastern district of new york so as we know linwood is licensed to practice law in georgia and what attorneys can do around the country is they can get admitted into a different court a different jurisdiction as what's called pro hoc vice which means yeah you're not licensed in that state but you're kind of working with another attorney who is licensed and you're applying to go practice law in there because you've got a particular skill set and so lynn wood has been the subject of a lot of controversy i mean i'm not sure that facebook even let us broadcast today because that was in our description his name was i don't know if that's the real story here or what the deal is but we'll figure that out but the point is he's been kind of gone right he's off of twitter uh he's got i think one lawsuit still pending in the u.s supreme court which is going to be up for a writ for cersei rory but he filed this new motion it's called an affidavit yesterday in the eastern district of new york and it was pretty interesting as i was reading through it and i want to explain what's going on here so as you can see filed yesterday eight pages long not gonna spend a ton of time going through the entirety of it but i did clip around and it says here there's a lawsuit where it's rosalind la liberte who is the plaintiff so it's this person suing joy reid who is the defendant and this is a defamation case and what what this document says is lynn wood is opposing the motion to revoke his pro hock vichai status okay he was admitted here into this court in the eastern district of new york to represent rosalind la liberte and now joy reid and her defense attorneys are trying to get him off of the case he's saying i am opposing that motion you should allow me to continue representing her and now what's been going on with him is everybody around the country is trying to get him removed from things i think his alma mater booted him out i think other individuals have basically just said we don't want anything to do with you i think that the georgia state bar has mandated some mental health screening and all of this stuff and you know i i don't really have much of an opinion on that other than just to point out what he is doing in this affidavit and he is basically doubling down on all of these claims and i've been very critical of lynnwood for for a long time really since his involvement in the written house case i didn't think he was qualified to be involved in the written house case i didn't think that he had any criminal experience relevant to to performance on that case and he's not he's no longer involved i thought that it was sort of more harm than good from his public persona that was ultimately going to result in harm to kyle and i had some issues with that so i've been i've been pretty critical about lynn for a long period of time but i i do like what's what's happening here because he's just sticking to the free speech concept and i'm not real sure how far it's going to go or how successful it's going to be but i just like the fact that he's fighting for it he's saying no it's free speech if i want to say loony wacky things out there if i want to just make wild outlandish claims i'm free to do that why free speech it's an argument i can get behind i don't even have to agree with anything that he says but just the fact that he's going to be saying hey this is america i can say whatever i want i can say things like mike pence is a traitor i can say john roberts is a pedophile i can say those things right because it's free speech and i'm somebody who is a big proponent of free speech you're free to say untruthful things you're free to say dangerous things you're free to say april you know controversial statements you're free to give strong inaccurate opinions you're allowed to do that in this country i know many people think that that's not okay these days everything's dangerous everything is too triggering right we're having to to just be very careful with our speech every which way and i don't like how that's going so i'm not agreeing or endorsing lynn wood in his statements the content of his statements i think they're a little bit off the wall quite frankly but he's allowed to say those things if he believes those things and they're not defamatory if they don't violate the law if they're not an incitement as long as they're within the confines of free speech they can be as wacky and outlandish and and and you know kind of disgusting language right he's allowed to say that stuff so he's pushing the bounds of free speech which i can appreciate all right so enough of that let's get into it he says i'm a member of good standing of the bar of the state of georgia the principal and sol cheryl shareholder of l lynnwood lead counsel for rosalind liberty in this action my admission pro hock vichai was granted by this court back in 2018 i submit this affidavit in opposition to the motion made by the defendant joy reid for an order revoking my admission so they're trying to get him off this case he says miss liberte contacted me on july 1 she searched the internet for me recognized me as an experienced defamation lawyer i gave her a phone call she hired me to represent her in a defamation matter since that date i already sent a cease and desist letter which you'll see as an exhibit and then what he's doing so so the original document that i'm not going to spend much time on is they have this sort of laundry list they go through this list and they say well look look how crazy lin wood is he said this he said this he said this paragraph six said this paragraph seven said this and he's responding to all of their allegations we don't really need to know what they what they said originally because he kind of uh summarizes it for us and here's what he's talking about in his first response i deny and dispute the allegations in paragraph 6 of the declaration prior to november 3rd i was a strong and vocal supporter of the re-election of president trump at the request of the president i met with him on march 11 in the oval office subsequent to the november third election i've continued to exercise my first amendment right to free speech to support the president i have also exercised my right to advocate for protection of the bill of rights honest elections and against pedophilia and child sex trafficking i've also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking government officials which i have brought to the attention of the public and federal law enforcement officials which which we still haven't seen yet right i mean is that where is that stuff the evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrate traded by the chief justice of the united states supreme court okay folks this is under oath in a district court of law right he's making this statement now and a lot of these statements previously were on twitter they were on uh you know parlor or uh telegram any of these other platforms right now he's saying this in writing under oath so i'm very curious to see whether or not the judge is going to say all right what do you got okay show us that evidence he goes on he denies another uh claim in paragraph seven he says i conducted a press conference with sydney powell the attorney for michael flynn i exercised my right of free speech i did urge attendees to consider i exercised my right of free speech and did urge attendees to consider engaging in acts of non-violent freedom and assembly and the right to publicly protest acts and inactions by the governor of georgia and the secretary of state i'm in possession of credible evidence supporting criminal acts by these georgia officials so he's kind of saying you know it's true right in in the original complaint they're saying this guy's off the off the wall and he's saying no it's true actually i've got evidence of that evidence of that evidence of this one he continues i deny dispute allegations it says he says my use of twitter was an exercise of my right of free speech the declaration cherry picks a few of my tweets out of context of the body of social messages on twitter as i post about my politics my religious faith my rescue puppies photos of my properties other matters of interest to me i like to write and i have used social media as a platform for my writing on a variety of topics it's just writing all right i deny and dispute the allegations in paragraph nine my tweet about former vice president mike pence was protected rhetorical and political hyperbole see watts versus united states 394 u.s 705 a 1969 case right so he's citing it and he's a he's a pretty renowned defamation lawyer so i haven't looked that case up but it might be worthwhile he goes on paragraph 10 i did not attend the rally in support of the president on january 6. i was not involved whatsoever in the planning of the rally or the incident at congress that day based on publicly available information the events and participants of the january since in six incident in congress is disputed and unresolved at the present time what is undisputed is i was not involved my tweet was protected speech i deny and dispute the allegations i am in possession of credible evidence to support my statements about pence and rod rosenstein as well as information about the death of seth rich i deny in dispute allegations i'm in possession of evidence to support my statements about mike pence he's laying this all out there for federal court the authenticity of the alleged social account of ashley babbitt has not been established by admission evidence and remains unproven and disputed i deny the disputed allegations i have no firsthand knowledge of the three percenters or q anon i am not responsible for the characterizations of miss powell he says my twitter account was terminated on january 7th after that date many twitter accounts of trump supporters have been terminated i have i have credible evidence to support my statement statements about pence my tweet is protected speech so he's just responding to all of their claims i presently post on telegrams my posts are protected speech it's protected rhetorical and political hyperbole he's once again referencing watts he says i have i have credible evidence to support the truth of my description of former vice president pence as a traitor i happen to like mike pence but we'll see we'll see if he's got that evidence he says i deny and dispute allegations as stated i've turned over whistleblower evidence to the u.s secret service related to mike pence and other high-ranking officials if desired by this court i am prepared to file that evidence along with a considerable amount of evidence of the election fraud this is a dangerous affidavit isn't it i am not doing so at this time i do not believe those issues are relevant to the president motion which i believe is nothing more than an effort to smear my reputation and interfere with the plaintiff's constitutional right to have counsel he says he dispute the allegations it disputes the allegations my posts are protected speech i have credible witness blower whistleblower evidence to support my truth and my statements i have not received this is interesting i have not received a retraction demand from justice roberts or his counsel he has not made any claim to date that my posts are false or defamatory former vice president mike pence rod rosenstein have also not sent retraction demands or claims that my posts of are concerning them are false or defamatory he says any evidence that i was involved in january 6 is errant nonsense with no factual support i have alt at all times in this action sought to comply with the rules i will continue to do so the body of my life's work as a lawyer who practiced pro hoc v chafe in over 25 states demonstrates that i adhere to the highest standards of my profession signed off on by l lynn wood notarized submitted on the 7th filed yesterday so we'll see where that goes you know i'm a big proponent of free speech here i don't endorse what linwood said i don't agree with what lin wood said i don't agree with his characterization of i have i've not seen any evidence of any of it right at this point in time all this stuff is just words on a page but i think he's entitled to say them you can have disagreements about the wisdom of those statements but i think he's allowed to say them and we're going to see what this court does are they going to throw him off the case because of his political statements it's an interesting issue we'll see where it goes