Your Honor, please don’t sanction me for never reading the thing that I signed my name on. I was just a conduit for these crazy people to take their case to your court. It was also kind of your fault if you were thinking about not having an evidence hearing. Further affinity does not say.
Or corresponding words.
This is the affidavit of Michigan attorney Gregory J. Rohl in response to Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s petition for sanctions in the Michigan Kraken case. You see, the counselor was home fixing Thanksgiving dinner on November 25th when he received a call at 6:30 p.m. from a representative asking Rohl if he was dealing with a lawsuit related to election fraud in Michigan who were led by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. “
And instead of saying, “Gosh, maybe we can talk about this on Monday so I can have the weekend to read the file and make comments before I agree to put my name on it,” he told GIDDYUP!
After Rohl “had stated that he was not political and that he did not care who won”, he was “then sent a copy of the already prepared proposed complaint with over 100 exhibits, which took well over an hour to review”.
Over an hour, Your Honor! That’s a full 36 seconds per exhibit.
And then Rohl had a conference call “before the skid” [sic] with plaintiffs who “made a strong impression that there was some form of Michigan electoral corruption by internal or external forces that should be reviewed by a competent court”.
Therefore, Rohl agreed to “act as a conduit for the pleadings and essentially hold the fort until Sidney Powell’s Pro Hac Vice motion was accepted by the court”. At 11:56 p.m., just four minutes before the deadline, Rohl’s secretary filed the complaint using his name as one of two local lawyers.
The next day, “media attention was essential to highlight various misspellings and formatting issues.” This is a nice way of saying there was an affidavit supposedly proving electoral fraud in Edison County, Michigan, a place that doesn’t exist. (Should probably have given this “declaration” [sic] 47 or even 49 seconds of review, right?)
There were also typos.
And Sidney Powell never applied for pro-hac vice approval. But you know, Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.
Mistakes were made. However, it is important that in this case he only bears his name and therefore cannot be held responsible for its content. Especially after “Rohl’s limited engagement was seriously undermined as a judge [Linda] Parker considered it appropriate to refrain from oral arguments and otherwise not to order evidence hearings. “(Does it mean” underline “?) How can a lawyer be assumed to know the strength or weakness of his own case if the court refuses to venture into it at all?
Whatever! Gregory Rohl would be delighted if the court acknowledged that he was only appearing as the Good Samaritan whose “sole aim was to ensure the court’s review of the alleged electoral fraud issues raised in the complaint.” Please do not deprive him of his permission to practice as a lawyer for any deficiencies in this complaint on which he has put his name.
Well … good luck with that.
King v. Whitmer, Docket [Court Listener]
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore, where she writes on law and politics.