Dear Lin, Sydney & Donald -the Court upbraided you in its 110 page Order-Memo

You want to read the whole Order or you can read the various tidbits I found rather scrupulous in yesterday’s Order. All NINE Plaintiff Attorneys ordered to pay sanctions, CLE & disciplinary referral

Here’s your prerequisite background —you’ll need to before we delve into the Court’s August 25, 2021 excoriating Order/Memo/Opinion

Judge: “I use the words ‘vast conspiracy’ purposefully -is one enormous conspiracy theory” SANCTIONS & Excoriating Ruling

and then you’ll need to reread this article

King v Witmer Case No. 2:20-cv-13134 ALWAYS KNOW YOUR LOCAL RULES

On August 25, 2021 OPINION and ORDER Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker and let me tell you -this 110 page ruling is absolutely brutal and it was a delight to read such a well written and articulation of everything wrong with Lin Wood, Sydney Powell, Rudy Giuliani ¹ and Trump’s big lie. See EDMI-ECF

This is the opening salvo - soak it in because this sets the tone and tenor of 110 pages of a point by point takedown of Trump’s big lie… frankly it’s exquisite writing. You can literally feel the burn leaping off all 110 pages..

…a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process…

No really this is the opening paragraph and I don’t think I’m overselling how excoriating this is -particularly the totality of the Court’s ruling. To say this is stunning in the most glorious way possible might be the understatement of the year…

This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.

Attorneys are officers of the Court, they take an oath…

The Court went there and by there I mean with crystal clear and unambiguous language stating that this case should have never been filed and that the plaintiffs attorneys have flagrantly violated their “oaths” as officers of the Court. The subtext of that is this lawsuit was filed in bad faith and the plaintiffs attorneys violated numerous rules and professional code of conduct…thusly sanctions are warranted.

…attorneys cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same. And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order.

Here’s why. America’s civil litigation system affords individuals the privilege to file a lawsuit to allege a violation of law. Individuals, however, must litigate within the established parameters for filing a claim. Such parameters are set forth in statutes, rules of civil procedure, local court rules, and professional rules of responsibility and ethics. Every attorney who files a claim on behalf of a client is charged with the obligation to know these statutes and rules, as well as the law allegedly violated.

..attorney’s freedom of speech is circumscribed upon “entering” the courtroom..

look some of you know that my fixation with respect to the “oath” attorneys take upon admittance of their respective state bar(s) that’s not an unnecessary over dramatization to elicit clicks or likes. There is a solemnity when you take that oath. And it’s not some fictionalized made for TC Courtroom drama. Don’t get me started on that because I can’t watch purported legal dramas because it cheapens the awesome responsibility that comes with being an officer of the Court. And not to belabor this point but this case had nothing to do with the 2020 Election —it had everything to do with the Plaintiffs attorneys complete and utter disregard for their profession, the Court, the rules and yes the Rule of Law

…question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in litigation practices that are abusive and, in turn, sanctionable. The short answer is yes.

The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence… proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought.

“…this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so…”

…attorneys take an oath to uphold and honor our legal system. The sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions when attorneys do not…

..the Court is duty-bound

…to grant the motions for sanctions filed by Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants and is imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and its own inherent authority.

Defendants -sanctions motion;

On January 26, 2021 and pursuant to Rule 11 “Motion for Sanctions, for Disciplinary Action, for Disbarment Referral and for Referral to State Bar Disciplinary Bodies.” the Defendants and intervening defendant filed aforementioned Motion.

State of Michigan’s Arguments:

As the Court makes clear citing the State of Michigan’s arguments that the plaintiffs knew their claims were meritless nonetheless the plaintiffs never moved to dismiss their frivolous and weak complaint…the State of Michigan identified three salient points. See pages 14 & 15.

The City of Detroit identified 9 areas…

where the Plaintiffs’ allegations were not well-grounded in fact, in contravention of Rule 11(b)(3).. see pages 16 thru 19 for each of the 9 areas where the City of Detroit identified where the plaintiffs utterly failed…

Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Here the court exhaustively articulates the plain language of §1927 and then provided copious case law citations.
For Example:

Section 1927 imposes an objective standard of conduct on attorneys, and courts need not make a finding of subjective bad faith before assessing monetary sanctions. Id. (citing Jones v. Cont’l Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1230 (6th Cir. 1986)).

A court need only determine that “an attorney reasonably should know that a claim pursued is frivolous.” Id. (quoting Jones, 789 F.2d at 1230). “Simple inadvertence or negligence, however, will not support sanctions under § 1927.”

The Court’s Conclusion

Intervenor Davis did in fact waste the Court’s time, bogged down the docket with numerous unnecessary filings and the Court ruled nothing would be awarded to Davis —simple put the Court holds Davis offered nothing to the litigation (that’s me summarizing pages 104 thru 107) —the Court is far more eloquent in its language than my snarky summary, as articulated on page 107

“This lawsuit should never have been filed…Defendants…should never have had to defend it…”

When I said the Coirt upbraided the Plaintiffs —that was me being quasi accurate because the opening paragraph under the Sanctions Imposed portion of the 110 Order. This is exquisitely brutal —oh but wait there’s more like CLE more (remember those Kris Kobach threads -damn that was some of my finer Twitter drags)

…continuing legal education in addition to monetary sanctions…

given the deficiencies in the pleadings, which claim violations of Michigan election law without a thorough understanding of what the law requires, and the number of failed election-challenge lawsuits that Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed, the Court concludes that the sanctions imposed should include mandatory continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards and election law.

BRUTAL & EXQUISITE -every state bar & federal court…

What is it that I always say - read the damn footnotes because the footnote on page 108 is unbelievably important and it is refreshing to see the Court articulate the concern of the “Election (faux) Fraud” Grift and the Court put Sydney Powell on straight up blast.

..the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which also constituted violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, see, e.g., MRPC 3.1 and 3.3, calls into question their fitness to practice law.

This warrants a referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for every state bar and federal court in which each attorney is admitted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes

The court eviscerated the Plaintiffs Attorneys..

• IT IS ORDERED that the motions for sanctions filed by the State Defendants (ECF No. 105) and City of Detroit (ECF No. 78) are GRANTED.

• Court is granting in part and denying in part Davis’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 69) in that the Court finds sanctions warranted but not an award of Davis’ reasonable attorneys’ fees or costs.

• IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall jointly and severally pay the fees and costs incurred by the State Defendants and the City of Detroit to defend this action.

the Plaintiffs Attorneys got the shellacking they deserved…and it’s glorious

• Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall each complete at least twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total) and election law (at least six hours total) within six months of this decision.

• Any courses must be offered by a non-partisan organization and must be paid for at counsel’s expense.

• Within six months of this decision, each attorney representing Plaintiffs shall file an affidavit in this case describing the content and length of the courses attended to satisfy this requirement.

…Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this decision to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the appropriate disciplinary authority for the jurisdiction(s) where each attorney is admitted, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment:

• (i) Sidney Powell - Texas;

• (ii) L. Lin Wood - Georgia; ²

• (iii) Emily Newman - Virginia;

• (iv) Julia Z. Haller - District of Columbia, Maryland, New York & New Jersey;

• (v) Brandon Johnson - District of Columbia, New York, & Nevada;

• (vi) Scott Hagerstrom - Michigan;

• (vii) Howard Kleinhendler - New York & New Jersey;

• (viii) Gregory Rohl - Michigan; and

• (iv) Stefanie Lynn Junttila - Michigan.

Friends this is why you should read the whole order..

See Scribd Link now if you’ll excuse me I’m on a hard 4:30PM deadline - if you have questions feel free to leave a comment and I’ll respond after COB… page 110 was the best part of all 110 pages - Filey

1. Also see the recent Dominion Voting Systems litigation-

Dominion Inc wins BIGLY -Powell, Giuliani et al MTD DENIED ENTIRELY

2. This article covers both Giuliani and Lin Wood state bar issues -

Dear Rudy -sorry about the DC Bar suspension. How quickly will other district courts will follow suit?