The Aporia · Forensic Election Fraud Analysts Allege Defendants Defamed Them as "Retaliation for Plaintiffs' Refusal to Report False Findings of Election Fraud"

Eugene Volokh

33 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction

🔮 [Nor do they] offer … facts that would suggest inevitable or likely exposure to the curriculum (or its harmful effects)….

2026-09-08 · mixed framing · "Jewish, Zionist" Teachers' and Parents' Lawsuit Over Allegedly Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Zionist School Curriculum Can Be Refiled, Ninth Circuit Rules

🔮 The court concluded that "The Big Board's refusal to comply with the orders was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," so not renewing his license based solely on such refusal would have been constitutional:

2026-09-08 · assertive framing · Was D.C. Bar's Liquor License Denied Partly Based on Owner's Speech Criticizing Anti-Masking/Vax-Proof Requirement Speech?

🔮 Lambert … falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had conflicts of interest with her clients and/or her firm, that she would sue the Plaintiffs if they were to be engaged in these relationships, and implicitly that she would take legal action against the relationships themselves if they were to hire Plaintiffs.

2026-09-08 · mixed framing · Forensic Election Fraud Analysts Allege Defendants Defamed Them as "Retaliation for Plaintiffs' Refusal to Report False Findings of Election Fraud"

🔮 The court concluded that, even "assuming arguendo that there's a fair chance that the press defendants have violated the federal and state trade secrets provisions," the First Amendment would preclude the TRO:

2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Judge's Opinion Denying TRO Against Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as to Publishing of Data Center Plans

🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From the docket this morning; for more on the case, see here and here (the latter item notes the sealing, and expresses the now-realized hope that "the motion will be unsealed at some point soon"): Via email, Plaintiff has informed the Court that it will not be pursuing preliminary injunctive relief….

2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Brief Update on the Entergy / Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Matter

🔮 Perhaps most analogously to alienation of affections, if Alan breaches his contract with Betty, and Cathy encouraged him to breach it, she will in many situations be liable for intentional interference with contract.

2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Alienation of Affections as Complicity

🔮 In a phone call on March 2, Gelb told Netrebko to issue a statement specifically denouncing Putin, or she would be fired.

2026-09-05 · assertive framing · Opera Star Anna Netrebko Loses Follow-Up Defamation Case Against the N.Y. Metropolitan Opera

🔮 A malicious act "include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.

2026-09-05 · assertive framing · N.C. Court Has Jurisdiction over Alienation of Affection Claim Brought Against Ex-Arizona-Senator Kyrsten Sinema

🔮 If you have followed the factual allegations in the case, please post a comment and indicate how you would have voted if you were a juror, based on your knowledge (even if limited) of the factual allegations, and why you would have so voted.

2026-09-05 · mixed framing · How Would You Have Applied Massachusetts Law in the Lindsay Clancy Trial?

🔮 As part of this mea culpa, Ms. Hall assured the court that she had taken the remedial measure of verifying that the remaining citations in the brief were legitimate authority and pledged that, going forward (presumably in her representation of other clients), she would not rely on any AI tool "for legal research without confirming each authority" or file anything that includes citations she has not independently verified.

2026-09-04 · assertive framing · "Incredulity" That "Competent Law Firm Representing One of the Largest Financial Institution[s] in the World" Filed Brief with AI Hallucinations

More on this subject from Eugene Volokh

Brief Update on the Entergy / Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Matter

2026-09-06 · Reason · 59% similar

"Incredulity" That "Competent Law Firm Representing One of the Largest Financial Institution[s] in the World" Filed Brief with AI Hallucinations

2026-09-04 · Reason · 58% similar

Prosecution for Forging Court Order, Purportedly from Chief Justice Roberts

2026-08-28 · Reason · 56% similar

Was D.C. Bar's Liquor License Denied Partly Based on Owner's Speech Criticizing Anti-Masking/Vax-Proof Requirement Speech?

2026-09-08 · Reason · 53% similar

All 33 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From Apelbaum v. Lambert, decided Friday by Judge Robert White (E.D. Mich.): Yaacov Apelbaum and his cybersecurity firm, XRVision, Ltd. (Plaintiffs), commenced this diversity breach of contract and defamation action against attorney Stephanie Lynn Lambert [the case caption calls her Stefanie Lynn Lambert], her law office {collectively referred to as the Lambert Defendants}, and Bill Bachenberg, after the parties allegedly contracted for Plaintiffs to investigate potential fraud during the 2020 general election…. uncertain

Plaintiffs → decide → election

Following the 2020 election, the Lambert Defendants, with financial assistance and partial direction from Bachenberg, promoted various claims of election fraud, including through lawsuits challenging election results. uncertain

Defendants → follow → results

Pursuant to these efforts, the Lambert Defendants pursued various election fraud investigations, and they hired Plaintiffs to conduct forensic analyses of election results and/or procedures in Michigan and Pennsylvania. asserted

they → pursue → Michigan

As particularly relevant here, the parties in March 2022 "entered into an agreement for Plaintiffs to perform a forensic analysis of Fulton County, Pennsylvania's elections systems, in exchange for $200,000." asserted

Plaintiffs → enter → 200,000

The parties later expanded the scope of Plaintiffs' analysis "for an additional fee of $350,000." asserted

parties → expand → 350,000

Plaintiffs allegedly performed their obligations of this agreement, but after they found and reported no evidence of election fraud in June 2022, Defendants never paid them as agreed. uncertain

Defendants → perform → them

Further, the Lambert Defendants also allegedly started a defamation campaign against Plaintiffs around August 2022 to dissuade the Pennsylvania Senate, among others, from doing business with Plaintiffs. uncertain

Defendants → start → Plaintiffs

According to Plaintiffs, they had at the time finalized negotiations with the Pennsylvania Senate to perform a forensic analysis of the whole state's election system, but Lambert Defendants' conduct caused the Pennsylvania Senate to terminate this relationship…. uncertain

Senate → accord → relationship

The court allowed plaintiffs' defamation claims against the Lambert defendants to go forward (because of Bachenberg's settlement agreement with the parties, the claims against Bachenberg weren't considered). uncertain

claims → allow → Bachenberg

Lambert … falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had conflicts of interest with her clients and/or her firm, that she would sue the Plaintiffs if they were to be engaged in these relationships, and implicitly that she would take legal action against the relationships themselves if they were to hire Plaintiffs. asserted

they → state → Plaintiffs

To wit: "Your office will receive a formal letter from my office today. asserted

office → receive → office

Yaacov Apelbaum has a conflict of interest. asserted

Apelbaum → have → interest

He was hired by Fulton County. asserted

He → hire → County

He is bound by privilege. asserted

He → bind → privilege

His firm will be sued if he performs any analysis on Fulton County data for the Senate." asserted

he → sue → Senate

… Lambert … also indicated, in written and verbal communications with representatives of the Pennsylvania Senate, the Wisconsin State Legislature, and the Arizona Senate, that the Plaintiffs were: - incompetent. - secretly working as malicious operatives of the federal government; and - entirely lacking any ability in the fields of cybersecurity and forensic analysis. asserted

Plaintiffs → indicate → cybersecurity

And the court reasoned that the claims could go ahead, based on the facts as plaintiffs plausibly alleged them to be: uncertain

them → reason → facts

First, the statement that Plaintiffs were legally conflicted from performing any analysis of Fulton County election data could surely deter—and allegedly did so here with respect to the abandoned negotiations with the Pennsylvania Senate—third parties from hiring Plaintiffs for such services, particularly with the included warning of legal action. uncertain

Plaintiffs → perform → action

Construing the complaint in Plaintiffs' favor, it is reasonable to infer, largely as a matter of common sense, that a third party would not want to hire Plaintiffs for services for which they would be subject to suit because of or otherwise limited by a conflict of interest. asserted

they → construe → interest

The statement that Plaintiffs "secretly work[ ]" as "malicious operatives" also sufficiently impugns their honesty and integrity such that a third party would certainly hesitate to associate with them. asserted

party → work → them

And average people could reasonably construe a lack of these facilities as making Plaintiffs unfit to perform the sensitive cybersecurity and forensic auditing services they offer. uncertain

they → construe → services

Likewise, the statements that Plaintiffs are "incompetent" and "entirely lacking any ability in … cybersecurity and forensic analysis" without a doubt adversely relate to Plaintiffs' conduct in their business or profession. asserted

Plaintiffs → lack → business

Further, the Court must accept as true at this stage that the statements "were deliberately made to persuade the Pennsylvania Senate against using Plaintiffs' forensic services." asserted

statements → accept → services

Next, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law at this early stage that any of these statements constitute nonactionable pure opinion. asserted

any → conclude → opinion

To the extent the Lambert Defendants couch the conflict-of-interest statement as protected legal opinion, they do not substantively explain how it (or any of the other allegedly defamatory statements) could not be objectively verified. uncertain

it → couch → statements

Accepting the allegations as true, however, whether Plaintiffs were conflicted as a matter of law or contract, or secretly and maliciously worked as federal operatives, are objectively verifiable facts. asserted

were → accept → operatives

Both alleged defamatory statements were presented as straightforward expressions of fact, not as subjective beliefs, and they can be verified by the records concerning Plaintiffs' prior work involving Fulton County and the federal government. asserted

they → present → County

And to the extent the statements concerning Plaintiffs' professional capabilities involve a greater potential for subjectivity, these also were made as straightforward expressions of fact rather than mere belief. asserted

these → concern → belief

Further, all the alleged statements at this stage constitute at most mixed opinion because they each imply knowledge of undisclosed facts privy to the Lambert Defendants. asserted

they → allege → Defendants

Critically, it can be reasonably inferred that Lambert Defendants made each allegedly defamatory statement based on their prior involvement with Plaintiffs, particularly the work Plaintiffs allegedly did for the Lambert Defendants in both Michigan and Pennsylvania. uncertain

Plaintiffs → infer → Michigan

And it is therefore reasonable for those hearing only that Plaintiffs (1) had a conflict of interest, (2) were generally incompetent and lacking any ability in their fields of business, and (3) operated secretly and maliciously for the federal government to conclude that the Lambert Defendants based their knowledge, and any purported opinion statement, on specific previous interactions with Plaintiffs that the Lambert Defendants never disclosed or explained. asserted

Defendants → hear → that

For example, the Lambert Defendants allegedly made the statement that Plaintiffs were conflicted with no explanation of Plaintiffs' prior work that caused a conflict. uncertain

that → make → conflict

Similarly, the general statements impugning Plaintiffs' performance and honesty imply specific knowledge of Plaintiffs' prior dealings or work that, again, the Lambert Defendants allegedly did not disclose. uncertain

Defendants → impugn → that

Nevertheless, because (1) the Lambert Defendants do not clearly and substantively brief an argument that the specific allegedly defamatory statements at issue were each nonactionable pure opinion and (2) the issue is context-specific and fact-driven, the Court concludes that this is more appropriate for resolution on a motion for summary judgment after the close of discovery. uncertain

this → brief → discovery

Plaintiffs' general assertions that the allegedly defamatory statements "were and are provably false statements of fact" are more so the type of conclusory allegation that requires some additional supporting facts to plausibly establish the element of falsity. uncertain

that → require → falsity

The same is true concerning actual malice and Plaintiffs' generalized allegations that Lambert Defendants "acted with willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and/or entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences, and they specifically intended to cause Plaintiffs harm. asserted

they → concern → harm

Nevertheless, the Court concludes that the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to reasonably infer these elements…. asserted

complaint → conclude → elements

[T]he complaint alleges that the parties worked together without issue on numerous projects until the point when Plaintiffs disclosed no evidence of election fraud in Fulton County and declined Lambert Defendants' request to falsely report otherwise, at which point Lambert Defendants became "furious." asserted

Defendants → allege → request

And this allegedly occurred while Lambert Defendants were promoting claims of election fraud, "us[ing] the public controversy from the 2020 Presidential Election to establish themselves as leading promoters (and profiteers) of election fraud narratives, and earn[ing] substantial income … [for] participat[ion] in election fraud investigations and lawsuits." uncertain

Defendants → occur → investigations

Accordingly, the complaint as a whole can be fairly read to allege that the Lambert Defendants orchestrated a deliberate defamation campaign against Plaintiffs with the specific intent to dissuade others from doing business with Plaintiffs, not due to legitimate concerns, but in retaliation for Plaintiffs' accurate report finding no evidence of election fraud and refusal to falsely report otherwise. asserted

Defendants → read → fraud

…and 10 more, not listed.

Forensic Election Fraud Analysts Allege Defendants Defamed Them as "Retaliation for Plaintiffs' Refusal to Report False Findings of Election Fraud"

Summary

Signals How these are calculated →

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Compared with similar articles

Publisher

Who wrote this

Topics

Subjects

Narrative

Claims (50 extracted, 20 hedged)