Dominion Voting Systems (AP Photo/Ben Gray, File), Stefanie Lambert (Oakland County Sheriff’s Office)
The Michigan attorney who served as local counsel in a failed “Kraken” lawsuit and escaped sanctions, only to face an indictment for allegedly tampering with voting machines after the 2020 election, praised herself as the “most competent in the country” and the “most qualified and knowledgeable about election fraud/election law” in an attempt to avoid being kicked out of Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit for leaking discovery to an election-denying sheriff.
Stefanie Lambert, aka Stefanie Lambert Junttila, complained in a Wednesday filing on ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne’s behalf that she was “arbitrarily limited to 5 pages” in a response to Dominion’s request to disqualify her from representing Byrne.
Lambert entered the case in March when Robert Driscoll, Byrne’s attorney at the time, told Dominion that Lambert shared discovery with a non-party, namely Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, and that Lambert filed discovery material to try and combat the conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to and willfully damage voting machines criminal case she faces.
Dominion said that Lambert and Byrne’s leak appeared to deliberately give Leaf “username-and-password access” to “more than 1 million documents” of discovery, which Leaf then cited as “evidence” of crimes in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Lambert previously justified the protective order breach by saying she forwarded evidence of 2020 election “criminal activity” to law enforcement, asserting that the discovery at issue included emails written in “Serbian and foreign languages” that she claimed were “evidence of criminal violations,” purportedly showing “top level Dominion employees directing and tasking foreign nationals to remotely access voting machines utilized in the United States during the November 3, 2020 election.”
Dominion responded that Lambert and Byrne drew a “xenophobic conclusion” that “any email from non-US-based Dominion personnel is conclusive evidence of criminal activity,” and that Lambert should be disqualified from the case.
In her latest response, Lambert cast herself as the premier election lawyer on the market.
“Clearly, there are significant concerns in allowing opposing parties to be allowed to dictate through disqualification motions who their opponents may have representing them,” the filing said. “Dominion might not like undersigned counsel because she is the most qualified and knowledgeable about election fraud/election law and has exposed the truth of Dominion’s shortcomings time and again in other litigation, and has persisted in seeking justice.”
Lambert then repeated that she is the best attorney in America to defend Byrne from Dominion’s defamation lawsuit.
“Indeed, because of the knowledge of election related cases, coupled with her time as a prosecutor, undersigned is the most competent in the country to address the issues facing Dr. Byrne in this lawsuit,” she said. “But, this does not give Dominion the right to seek disqualification of counsel as the remedy, and in any event, this Court not the opposing counsel presides over the case. Dominion simply cannot dictate who Dr. Byrne has as his counsel.”
After arguing that Dominion had “inappropriately” abused the existing protective order to hide “law violations” by designating documents as “confidential trade secret/intellectual property,” Lambert called it an “absurd” notion that the “strategically filed protective order” prevents reporting criminal activity to law enforcement — i.e., Sheriff Leaf.
In closing, Lambert praised her qualifications one more time.
“What Dominion can do is try and get this Court to disqualify undersigned and prevent Dr. Byrne from having the most experience [sic] and qualified counsel of his choice defend him in this litigation,” the filing said.
Read the sur-reply here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
