The city of Detroit told the federal judge on Tuesday that sanctions are warranted in a case seeking to disturb Michigan’s election results.
The case was brought by allies of President Trump. Detroit wants the challengers – three local GOP officials and three Trump electors — to pay back to the defendants the costs and fees incurred in the litigation.
Detroit said on Tuesday that, in a coming filing, the city will lay “out many of the intentional misrepresentations made by Plaintiffs in their filings in this case.”
“Plaintiffs are trying to send the message that our democracy cannot be trusted,” the filing later said. “It is time for this Court to send a message back: lies and frivolous claims will not be tolerated. This abuse of our legal system deserves the strongest possible sanctions.”
A Wayne County voter who has sought to intervene in the case also filed a sanctions request on Tuesday. He said the challengers and their attorneys had made “clearly frivolous arguments” and were “using the judicial system to obtain unprecedented relief, to satisfy Plaintiffs’ selfish and destructive political agendas.”
The case is one of dozens of conspiracy theory-laden lawsuits that President Trump and his supporters have filed in their effort to stave off his defeat in the presidential election.
And it is not the only one where the potential for legal blowback for those gambits has came up.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also suggested Tuesday in public comments that she would pursue sanctions against the lawyers involved in the Michigan election reversal cases, but she did not say specifically which lawsuits or lawyers she was referring to.
Sidney Powell, who has had Trump’s ear in the recent days, is among the conservative lawyers who have been involved in the legal gambits trying to disrupt Joe Biden’s victory in Michigan, including the case where Detroit is now seeking sanctions.
Additionally, the Arizona Republican Party may face sanctions for a “meritless” case it brought in Maricopa County, a state court judge suggested Monday.
While the judge had already dismissed the case, he was still weighing “whether the Republican Party and its attorneys brought the case in bad faith to delay certification of the election or to cast false shadows on the election’s legitimacy.”
In a filing earlier this month, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs argued that the judge should order the GOP to pay her more than $18,000 in fees.
Hobbs said that the Republicans’ tactics in the case were “truly amateurish.”
“Their motives were transparent: delay final election results and sow doubt about the integrity of Arizona’s elections system,” she said. “That’s simply not what litigation is for, and this abuse of the judicial system should not go without sanction.”
The judge, in his opinion Monday explaining why he was dismissing the case, zeroed in on claims the GOP made in their complaint where they suggested a hand count audit of the election had not yet begun, when in fact it had.
“What exactly the Arizona Republican Party and its attorney knew or had reason to know about the status of hand count audit, at the time of filing the complaint, will be an issue on the application for attorneys’ fees,” the judge said. “The Republican Party appears to have had constructive knowledge, at least, of facts that contradicted the allegations in the complaint.”
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, a Trump-aligned lawyer who has been spearheading election reversal several lawsuits in Georgia and elsewhere drew heat from a judge presiding over a non-election case with which the lawyer is also involved.
The lawyer, Lin Wood, is representing Russia probe figure Carter Page in a defamation lawsuit Page brought in Delaware against certain media outlets.
The Delaware state court judge said recently that Wood’s conduct in the Georgia election challenges may violate Delaware’s code of legal professional conduct. The judge ordered Wood to submit an explanation for why the court shouldn’t revoke his representation of Page.
An affidavit that Wood submitted in one of the Georgia cases “contained materially false information, misidentifying the counties as to which claimed fraudulent voting information occurred,” the Delaware judge said.
Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
( c ) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11©(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.
It’s not Soros funded, FEMA run, Pol Pot inspired concentration camps, but I’ll take it.
Happy Christmas to all!
Hit them in the wallet. It’s the only thing rethugs understand.
More of this, please!