After Team Kraken spun yarn over Hugo Chavez, who is running Canada’s Dominion Voting from across the grave to cast votes – a claim even OAN is now running – he’s now faced with Rule 11 sanctions in Michigan for he adopted a litigation strategy based on theories the toaster yelled at her every morning. Earlier this month, the City of Detroit filed a sanction petition requesting the court to refer the seven attorneys involved – including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood – to their local attorneys for disciplinary action after they got fed up with being punching bags in the lawsuit against them to serve Michigan officials based on wild innuendos.
Local lawyer in response Stefanie Lambert Junttila vigorously against Detroit’s motion based on … well, so.
The city’s request for sanctions under Rule 11 as well as for the barring of lawyers and their referral to state bar associations for disciplinary action is procedural, as it violates the requirement that a sanction request under Rule 11 be “separate from any other movement, “Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 (c) (2) (emphasis added).
This is point 1. This is the best argument you have against this motion. You leave with “because you asked for sanctions and a referral to the disciplinary authorities, the application is invalid”. As opposed to reading this text as “You can’t just file sanctions requests at the end of the dismissal request” like ANYONE ELSE WOULD READ IT.
This sets the tone for the entire answer.
She submitted her bogus petition to promote her own agenda to the media and divert attention from explosive evidence of election fraud.
If “explosive” is defined as something that dissolves into nothing in the midst of a noisy spectacle, then it is safe to characterize the evidence of electoral fraud as explosive.
There is no legal or factual basis for this court to provide the relief requested by the city. Accordingly, the entire application must be denied as the city has filed an application for rule 11 sanctions and other types of punitive measures under rule 11.
In support of this, they cite a case where sanctions were requested in a motion for dismissal without realizing this important differentiator … because, of course, they did not.
Second, the city’s motion must be denied in relation to any attorneys who actually failed to appear or did not sign pleadings on the matter. Rule 11 deals with signing frivolous pleadings and other papers. Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1274 (2nd cir. 1986). It may not be asserted against attorneys whose names appear on a brief but who did not sign the brief or otherwise formally appear in the lawsuit. In re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977, 984 (6th Cir. 1987).
Yes, this will lead to a claim that only the attorney who physically signs an application can be hooked for professional misconduct. Do you find it strange that you are citing 34 year old cases in an era of electronic filing? Go with this intuition! Rule 11 received a change to regulate this, which makes it clear that its application does not activate the magic of an ink signature, but rather the arguments the attorney makes in court – which are in the form of a signed document or a variety of other forms There can be possibilities up to the later transfer of the arguments in an unsigned submission.
Because a sanction rule that only identifies the lawyer on site would be crazy and lead to professional chaos.
This is literally a comic book villain’s argument: “You can’t catch me, I was never really here! [drops smoke bomb and slinks into the night]”
The only signatory or appearance made in the brief life of this case was the plaintiff’s local attorney. No other lawyer signed any of the briefs.
This case has enjoyed a short life. But apparently not short enough to actually check all the documents. Or in this case the first f ** king submission! Let’s look at the complaint:
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “D’oh!”
Now the argument has passed from “signature” to “ink signature”. Hi Boy. I think it’s also worth noting that there is no magic wand that lawyers can use to commit sanctionable acts while pro hac approval is pending. Let’s submit that now before there is an additional submission.
Wood at least avoids creating even an electronic signature so that he can exploit the argument that “[w]Here the plaintiff signed the submitted papers, but the lawyer’s name only appeared in typewritten form on the papers. Sanctions cannot be imposed on the attorney as Rule 11 only focuses on those who have signed the document in question. “This quote is from another case resolved prior to the amendment to Rule 11, and it definitely focuses on plaintiffs becoming villains rather than a group of fellow attorneys filing a motion under one signature.
All of this serves to raise hopes on the argument that the court cannot take into account Powell and Wood’s public statements which add weight to the evidence that this matter was ill-conceived at best and, at worst, overtly frivolous and only intended was harassing because none of them “signed” the documents. Except Powell. And that’s not the standard anyway. And that’s all absurd theater.
The city’s application requests under Rule 11 relating to frivolous legal claims and unsupported allegations of fact must be dismissed if a deadline of 21 days is not met and an answer is given under Rule 11 (c) (2).
Except when we wrote back in December, they had actually received a copy of the application in advance. Detroit received no response, despite the fact that Lin Wood had posted to his Twitter account – because he was not yet banned for advocating the murder of Mike Pence – “If you were mistakenly told by the likes of David Fink and Marc Elias of Perkins Coie (The Hillary ) being accused of Clinton Firm) in a propaganda rag like Law & Crime, you smile because you know you are above the target and the enemy is afraid! “That’s because Law & Crime reported that the Safe Harbor Period triggered some time before December 15th. This is, of course, more than 21 days before the sanctions motion was actually filed on January 5th, which we probably would have written about on January 6th if the country weren’t in the middle of a coup inspired by lies that by then in exactly these documents were told.
This argument is more of a timing game than anything else.
Indeed, in relation to Rule 11, the Advisory Committee states: “In order to emphasize the seriousness of a sanctions motion and to precisely define the conduct that allegedly violates the rule, the revision provides for the“ safe harbor ”period the movement only begins after delivery of. In most cases, however, an attorney should be expected to inform the other party, in person or through a phone call or letter, of a potential violation before proceeding with the preparation and delivery of a Rule 11 motion. “
The plaintiffs have now decided to voluntarily dismiss the case, but after the 21-day healing period. So they argue that the 21 days actually start on January 5th and make them clear. Except that the notice tries to protect itself from sandbags – where the attorney vaguely threatens sanctions and later drops a detailed motion. In the event that the application is in full form at the time of initial notice, which is Detroit in its Rule 11 filing, the safe haven has already expired.
After working through these arguments – supposedly the good ones – the answer becomes entangled in the bigger question of whether or not the case was frivolous. Ironically, this is probably the “best” argument the plaintiffs’ attorney has because, while it is likely a jiggery pokery as Justice Scalia would put it, he manages to confuse the question so that a judge takes the drastic measure could refuse to impose sanctions. These are all first impression questions, they argue, and novel claims cannot be taken lightly with hindsight. And while it is true that these were first impression questions, in that no court had previously come up with the idea that Chinese officials were transporting fake ballot papers on the orders of dead South American dictators, it seems like an ass of the law to propose to Any Bonkers – Legal claim receives a giveaway.
Or in this case … about 60.
The only “specific behavior” identified in the application is “[t]The allegations of alleged fraud in the processing and tabulation of postal ballot papers by the city in the TCF center, which according to the city has been rejected by every court that has examined it, ECF No. 78, 7, does not, however, I quote none Case in which this was “exposed”.
If this is confusing, it is because they are trying to save face on the road to professional credibility by claiming that judges who reject their claims as legally nonsensical have not earned the merit to – TECHNICAL – could still be true! The answer reflects the bold but dangerous move that sanctions would therefore require an evidence hearing to evaluate all of the flimsy affidavits and “expert opinions” out there. Does the court want to waste judicial resources wading through this garbage? Would Team Kraken be screwed if the court did? Yes.
They even go so far as to rehabilitate “Spyder” – the military intelligence expert whose identity they tried to protect because he was never found to be a military intelligence expert – by saying “yes”, but you have never proved that he was wrong about the matter Assumptions he had no specialist knowledge to make! Honestly, it’s shocking that they haven’t devoted two pages here to defending Melissa Carone.
But that is why sanctions are so difficult to secure. The judges are under great pressure not to drop the gavel no matter how unsettling the behavior is.
By the way, in case you’re wondering, not only is the local attorney Junttila the only signature on this answer, but also the only attorney identified on the last page. That is a commitment to the piece.
Joe Patrice is Senior Editor at Above the Law and co-moderator of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter for all the law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe is also the managing director of RPN Executive Search.