Election 2020

Federal Judge Beaches Kraken and Orders Sanctions

Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler must pay legal fees, attend CLEs, and face potential further punishment.

|

U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker has granted the motion for sanctions against the so-called "Kraken" lawyers who sought to challenge the 2020 election results in Michigan: : Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, Emily Newman, Julia Z. Haller. Brandon Johnson, Scott Hagerstrom, Howard Kleinhendler, Gregory Rohl, and Stefanie Lynn Junttila. This follows another sanctions decision issued in Colorado earlier this month.

In a 110-page opinion, Judge Parker details the attorneys' bad faith and irresponsible conduct, and grants the state of Michigan's and city of Detroit's motion for sanctions. Judge Parker's order provides that the named attorneys are jointly and severally liable for the costs incurred by the defendants. She further orders that each sanctioned attorney must "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," at the attorneys own expense. Judge Parker is also referring all of the named attorneys to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the "the appropriate disciplinary authority for the jurisdiction(s) where each attorney is admitted, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension or
disbarment."

In short, the Kraken attorneys have had a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good day.

Judge Parker's opinion begins:

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.

Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. But 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.

Specifically, attorneys have an obligation to the judiciary, their profession, and the public (i) to conduct some degree of due diligence before presenting allegations as truth; (ii) to advance only tenable claims; and (iii) to proceed with a lawsuit in good faith and based on a proper purpose. Attorneys also have an obligation to dismiss a lawsuit when it becomes clear that the requested relief is unavailable.

This matter comes before the Court upon allegations that Plaintiffs' counsel did none of these things. To be clear, for the purpose of the pending sanctions motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the State of Michigan. Rather, the 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 (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); 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.

And 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.

While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced, such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law. And while we as a country pride ourselves on the freedoms embodied within the First Amendment, it is well-established that an attorney's freedom of speech is circumscribed upon "entering" the courtroom.

Indeed, 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. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs' attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way. As such 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.

I suspect the sanctioned attorneys will appeal, and some are still facing defamation suits arising out of their false and reckless election claims.

NEXT: Will Chantell and Michael Sackett Get Another Day in the Supreme Court?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Judge Parker is a vicious Obama attack dog. This is typical of the lynching one can expect when the diverse control government. She needs to be removed from the bench, and to be made to pay all legal costs. I want to do e-discovery on a judge. These are the lowest scumbags in our society, and need to be deterred.

    1. I wanted to privately prosecute my federal judge for murder and for her crimes against humanity. The Mercer County criminal court requires a law license for a private prosecution. You lawyers have it nicely rigged.

        1. She might resemble a human, but she’s not fully evolved.

        2. Meanwhile, all the online dictionaries in the English speaking world are reporting an uptick in searches for the definition of “schadenpriapism”.

        3. Can I down vote this comment? This is not the kind of intellectual engagement that I hope to find on this blog.

      1. Hey, Adler. Where is your mockery and gloating in this post, when the EPA called small farm drainage ponds wetlands?

        How come EPA lawyers are not forced to take CLE within 6 months or to pay all costs from personal assets? Seriously, what is the difference between those two cases from a professional responsibility point of view? You are oblivious to what is obvious to everyone at the diner.

        https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/25/will-chantell-and-michael-sackett-get-another-day-before-the-supreme-court/

        1. Hey, Adler, you Ivy indoctrinated, rent seeking lawyer, how about mocking and gloating about the lawyer who filed the child porn charge for the Nirvana album? She is a child porn lawyer. Her client was so upset he has reenacted the pose at several anniversaries, and has Nevermind tattooed.

          1. Hey, Adler, why don’t you mock the 90% of tort claims that are ridiculous and frivolous?

            1. Objective reality sends its regards, and wonders if you are ever coming back.

    2. Do you object so something in specific in the decision or do you just hate that a judge is calling BS on the Big Lie?

      1. This is just more Democrat lawfare. Adler has no idea to what I am referring, being an Ivy indoctrinated, big government, rent seeking lawyer.

        What happened to all the litigation privileges? What happened to Edelman? What happened to judicial temperament, which I respect? The decision is straight hate speech from the KKK. The case offended the judge, a partisan Democrat attack dog, and now she is just retaliating.

        What happened to the overwhelming majority of the judge’s cases dismissed on first pleading? Are sanctions due for those?

        1. The Democrat Party is the party of the ugly people. The Democrat agenda is their revenge against a nation that mistreated them all their lives.

          1. “The Democrat Party is the party of the ugly people. ”

            Which you’d know from being at all the meetings, right?

        2. Always attack the judge, demanding recusal due to her status as a woman and as a diverse. She is biased. Then provoke the judge into reversible error. Then file formal complaints with any review board possible. Ask one’s politicians to demand her resignation. Then try to pierce her immunities and try to sue her for judge malpractice. These judge immunities deprive the victims of these judges of their civil rights, and justify violence in formal logic. Formal logic has more certainty than the laws of physics.

          1. Always laugh at the nuts.

        3. So no, you do not have any objections to anything in specific.

            1. Or just truly nuts. I have run into people like this in RL and they are simply so steeped in right-wing cant that there is no reasoning with them. Pointless to even try.

              If he reads this he will be convinced that I am the deranged one, full of hate and TDS or Antifa or whatever feverish specter he chooses to invoke at that time.

              1. Orb. I think you are acculturated to your Democrat jurisdiction, and cannot get beyond your surroundings. Although an East Coast sophisticate, I spent a lot of time more than 50 miles from a coast, like years. Those Upper West Side Trump haters are as provincial and as socially isolated as the people of the deepest holler of Kentucky.

                Beyond local culture, the lawyer has rent seeking as a motivation to refuse to change. Taking candy from a baby is really hard in real life. Imagine taking $trillion away from people for which they return nothing of value.

                I provided a legal analysis, and Molly just says, I did not. It refuses to read my comment. In the absence of the proof of malice, the litigants also have qualified immunity. Immunity for Democrat attack dogs on the bench is true. Immunities for Trump supporters does not exist.

                1. You’re an Extreme Atheist *and* an East Coast Sophisticate?

                  Sounds exhausting.

              2. “Or just truly nuts.”

                That’s the one.

        4. This decision shows that lawyers and causes that judges like can get away with all kinds of terrible practices. But woe to the lawyers or causes that the judges do not like. This double standard could be the ruin of our civil justice system.

          1. They’re all out to get ya, ya know.

    3. Letting a black Obongo judge hear the case is just as outrageous as that fairy Vaughn Walker hearing the Prop 8 case in California.

      1. Did any party seek the judge´s recusal? It is too late to cavil now.

        1. No, because liberal society doesn’t accept the obvious truth that only white heterosexual men have the capacity for objectivity. Everyone else resorts to tribal loyalties.

          1. I thank those responsible for the content of this White, male, movement conservative blog for exposing unvarnished Republican thinking to a (slightly) broader audience than the usual Instapundit-Free Republic-RedState-Stormfront-Gateway Pundit-Newsmax-Breitbart context.

            1. I do not want to invade Artie’s privacy. Whatever he does, he needs to be replaced. I suggest a diverse, lesbian quadriplegic.

              1. I agree, the gay liberal warrior thing is getting tired.

          2. And you don’t think white makes are tribal? Try reading your crap sometime; it’s nothing but white male tribalism.

          3. How are you a real person who exists in the world?

          4. ” liberal society doesn’t accept the obvious truth that only white heterosexual men have the capacity for objectivity. Everyone else resorts to tribal loyalties.”

            Only people like us can ignore tribal loyalties. WE don’t do that, only THEY do.

      2. If sexual orientation was a bar to hearing the Proposition 8 case, then who in your view should have heard it? I don’t know of any avowedly asexual judges in the relevant jurisdiction, but perhaps you do.

        1. Not only that, but do white judges have to recuse themselves from cases alleging reverse discrimination?

        2. ” I don’t know of any avowedly asexual judges in the relevant jurisdiction”

          Asexual is a choice (well, except for the incels.)

      3. Everyone just going to skate right over the racism (here) and the misogyny (above)? Just because it’s stupid doesn’t mean it isn’t real, as the US right like to demonstrate several times a day in any given time zone.

        1. Most folk here already know he’s a self-hating homosexual with a deep attraction to minority men and that this is how he deals with it. You can mute him.

          1. I hadn’t figured out the deep attraction to minority men part, but now that you mention it, it does make sense.

          2. No, he’s not any of those things. He’s just a bigot.

            1. Stick around awhile; you’ve not yet been treated to one of his discourses on gay butt sex.

              1. Seriously, anybody that fascinated by gay butt sex HAS to be at least to the questioning stage.

    4. Psssssst: You lost. Stop crying.

  2. Thought this was gonna be about the new NHL team, and how fucking ugly their jerseys are.

    1. You are not wrong about the name or the jerseys.

  3. While it’s hard to feel sympathy for any of these pieces-of-shit attorneys, once can’t help but . . . . . . . . . oh hell; I’m gonna stick with my feeling no sympathy. It would be great if we never hear any of their names again.

    Or, at least, not until they file (post-civil judgments), for relief in various Bankruptcy courts.

  4. complete at least twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total)

    Is this really what they were missing? They didn’t understand the nuances of the Iqbal/Twombly standard?

    I can give them a CLE in two minutes:

    Don’t make up s—t when you file something in Court.

    1. I wish Trump had included some CLEs in the Doha Agreement…maybe the Taliban would have given up when faced with 12 hours of courses they were required to attend.

  5. I guess this is just the latest court test of the Big Lie that once again shows what a lie it is.

    What’s the count now? 65?

    1. But, see, Arizona is being joined by a Wisconsin audit now. And the Durham report is coming as well!

      1. The clingers seem to be backing away from a clown car audit in Pennsylvania — but I hear the patrons of Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force are (believe it or not) raising funds for another round of get-your-ass-kicked litigation.

        1. The “I am not a sheep” sheep will be happy to contribute the money they would have paid for vaccination to the fund.

  6. My only complaint here is that the people responsible for the Steele dossier and its use by the FBI weren’t right next to this crew in the dock. That dossier was no less fraudulent, and was the ultimate basis for a lot of legal proceedings.

    1. What was it the basis for?

      1. Remember there was this FBI probe, and special prosecutor by the name of M something? Nothing that hit the headlines, of course.

        1. The investigation started by Papadopoulos shooting his mouth of and not that dossier?

          Try again.

          1. The FBI just did a lot of lying about it, it wasn’t just the FISA court they lied to.

            1. Which has what to do with the Steel Dossier again?

        2. “Remember there was this FBI probe,”

          There was this FBI probe because the Trump campaign kept calling known Russian agents.

    2. Whataboutism.

      Never good.

      1. BS. “Whataboutism”, or anti-hypocrisy to those of us who can think, is a necessary tool to point out the double standards you liberals are always using.

        1. When pretty much the only argument you have left is to constantly find or claim a double standard, you’ve reduced your ideology to moral equivalence as justification rather than anything remotely substantive or principled.

        2. “BS. “Whataboutism”, or anti-hypocrisy to those of us who can think, is a necessary tool to point out the double standards you liberals are always using.”

          Is this an example of what “those of you who can think” can think? Because it doesn’t look good.

    3. Your only complaint here is about a completely unrelated rightwing bugbear, because this was just part of an attempt to overthrow a democratic election, no big deal. Sure, it was remarkable in its stupidity, but then so is Trump, and you guys managed to elect him president.

      1. “it was remarkable in its stupidity, but then so is Trump, and you guys managed to elect him president.”

        It is important to note that they only managed this trick once, and that it didn’t work a second time. The American public successfully elected Trump to the job of unemployed former politician. An event that he successfully parlayed into a failed business venture, his fake fake-news website.

    4. See those people had a good cause. Same reason J6 trespassers are held without bail and BLM arsonists have their charges dropped.

      Thats the new thing. If your cause, in this case Orange Man Bad, is noble you are above the law. If your cause is not noble. Like protesting an election of the favored regime, then you are below the law.

      Thats todays justice!

      1. As has been brought up many times, there is zero evidence of a double standard between the rioters this past summer and the insurrectionists on Jan 06.

        Just because you feel it doesn’t mean every anecdote is proof of a trend.

    5. I have to agree. While I have no love lost for these people, there is a clear discrepancy in punishment based on political affiliation.

      We have clear and explicitly recorded crimes committed against the Trump administration. Most notably, there were fraudulent FBI warrant applications and countless incidents of defamation. Not one was prosecuted, even when the evidence was unambiguous. However, there have been repeated prosecutions and sanctions of the Trump team on charges both real and trumped up.

      This discrepancy in treatment is so great that I cannot trust the conclusion that there is nothing here.

      1. Most notably, there were fraudulent FBI warrant applications and countless incidents of defamation. Not one was prosecuted,

        The one person found to have altered a document for a warrant application was prosecuted and convicted.

        (Nobody gets prosecuted for “defamation,” even if there were “countless incidents” of such, which there weren’t.)

        1. “Nobody gets prosecuted for ‘defamation,'”

          There are still some jurisdictions with criminal libel. And product disparagement liability is a newer version.

    6. The Steele dossier was far from fraudulent. It was a series of reports and much of it was based on public knowledge. Trying to equate the dossier with the fertilizer that the Trump lawyers were selling is a large stretch.

      1. There wasn’t a single point in that whole dossier that even resembled true facts.

        1. +1000 Unicorns are real too I guess in some folks reality. There is no truth that can penetrate

          1. ” I guess in some folks reality. There is no truth that can penetrate”

            This is why the “Trump won… in a landslide!” story persists.

        2. Wouldn’t it be FANTASTIC if this got derailed into a back and forth about the Steele Dossier, Mueller, the Russia Probe? That would certainly distract from discussion about the enormous, embarrasing shitshow of Trump’s legal challenges.

          1. Agreed. Steele has never asserted his work was opinion and not to be believed. Trump lawyers have made such an assertion and have said that no sane person would belief what they said in their court filings.

            1. Wasn’t the actual strategy to ‘lose all the way to the Supreme Court’ which would then hand the election to Trump?

              1. Swell, Trump could have been in charge of getting us out of Afghanistan. I’m sure that would have turned out just peachy keen.

  7. As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels.

  8. If only the federal courts applied similarly lofty standards against the sophistry so regularly disguised as judicial reasoning.

    IMHO, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is single-handedly responsible for the Dem House Majority – see its sophisticated abuse of that state’s constitution to redraw the Congressional map in 2018 and its 2020 zingers that simply ignored the election laws enacted by the other two branches.

    And what happens to rogue judges who issue baseless national injunctions or stonewall dismissal of criminal proceedings despite rulings from higher courts?

    1. You mean by making it so the Congressional delegation more closely represents the votes? Right now it is 50/50 D and R, which pretty close to the Biden/Trump split. Anything else would be undemocratic.

      1. You mean not following the constitution which says this authority resides with the state legislature

        1. You… never actually studied law in your life, did you?

          1. The problem with those of you who “studied law” is that you all think plain sentences should have multiple meanings.

            1. In law school you learn through repeated examples that written words are a crap way to do get actual clarity.
              Which is why legal language is so stilted.

          2. You don’t have reading comprehension do you. Its simple english

            1. You’re reading the word only where it does not exist.

              It’s not simple English, it’s your wishful thinking that our elections become more vulnerable to partisanship.

            2. So is the taxation clause. Do you think Congress could pass a law imposing taxes on only Catholics?

    2. I have no problem with these sanctions. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but, in at least two cases, the witnesses were sworn in and when asked where’s the beef, the cupboard was bare.

      However, the judge substituting his reasoning for the two other branches, which the constitution grants to the legislature, and the governor signing, that is a major problem.

      “Democracy is awesome!” they squeal, as they use it to expand powers. But actual democracy? Not so much. Just an impediment for power acquisition.

      1. This is about filing false, misleading, and frivolous court papers. There is nothing in the Constitution about this and sanctions are clearly in the courts jurisdiction.

    3. “what happens to rogue judges who issue baseless national injunctions or stonewall dismissal of criminal proceedings despite rulings from higher courts?”

      The federal ones? They serve for life.

  9. If you take Plato’s view of justice as a kind of medicine which, while it may hurt in the short run, improves people and produces good in the long run, perhaps these folks did not have such a bad day after all.

    1. People take medicine because they want to be healed.

      They fuckers are just paid assholes walking along the Yellow Brick Road.

  10. She further orders that each sanctioned attorney must “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,” at the attorneys own expense.

    The imposition of sanctions here seems more than warranted, but what is the source of a district judge’s authority to impose this penalty?

    1. but what is the source of a district judge’s authority to impose this penalty?

      It’s a great question, but I can say with a perfectly straight face that the royal “we” have pretty much stopped asking that question for any situation at all over the last 18 months (save the relatively brief end of the “Trump is not a king” era). Just last week here we discussed a judge ordering an unconvicted defendant to be vaccinated as a condition of release pending trial.

      In short, authoritarianism is in — and has been largely cheered by the masses as it goes. If you’re ready to try to stuff the genie back in the bottle, I’m right there with you.

      1. Then I’m sure you’re very upset about a single unelected district judge dictating to the entire federal Executive branch how to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign government.

        1. a single unelected district judge dictating to the entire federal Executive branch how to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a foreign government.

          I’m sure you feel like your careful choice of words (particularly “diplomatic negotiations” — really?) turns (1) a legal opinion grounded in the Administrative Procedures Act (statutory authority, regardless of how you happen to feel about it), (2) affirmed by the 5th Circuit, and (3) denied cert by the Supreme Court, into a Very Clever Point. But to me it just looks like reactionary flailing over a bona fide legal dispute that didn’t come out the way you wanted.

          1. Granted: The Trump administration practices in question can be conducted only with the cooperation of Mexico.

            Posited: In that cooperation, Mexico’s reasoning was similar to giving a cookie to a toddler in a toy shop (to mix a metaphor).

            Mexico: “Why does the Supreme Court of the United States believe it has jurisdiction over the nation of Mexico’s foreign policy?”

    2. Uhhh, Rule 11 comes to mind and may include a “nonmonetary directive”. Also inherent authority. I think the court’s on solid footing here.

      Fees are a much stronger remedy than CLE anyway, but even there the court recognized Powell et al. can probably fundraise to cover those.

      Strongest of all is disbarment but that’s going to be addressed separately by the relevant state entities, not EDMI.

      1. “Fees are a much stronger remedy than CLE anyway”

        Depends on the CLE. I have been to CLE’s that would qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention.

        1. Did you lack the ability to stand up and walk away?

    3. “imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure, 28 U.S.C.§ 1927, and its own inherent authority.£ Page 5 of the order.

  11. Just remember kids, when you work with Trump, you end up getting burned.

    EVERY – SINGLE – TIME.

  12. (ii) to advance only tenable claims

    When Dr. Laura’s nudes escaped into the wild, her lawyers sued saying A. ‘twarn’t her, and B. She owned the copyright on them.

    When asked why she owned the copyright on nudes of a woman that wasn’t her, her lawyers just said, you know, they were being good lawyers covering all bases.

    1. So, I realize that the specific example seems similar. And a lot like the Shaggy, “It wasn’t me,” issue.

      But … attorneys are given leeway to plead in the alternative- you always see this in defenses! But for affirmative claims, the most common and easy-to-understand example is this:
      Claim A: They breached the contract.
      Claim B: If there was no contract, they still owe me money (unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, etc.).

      This specific example does seem pretty bad. But the attorneys are saying, “It’s not her, and if it is, she would own the copyright in it (assume it’s a selfie).”

      This is slightly different, in that when the judge is saying “tenable claim,” she is remarking that the claims themselves had no legal basis- that they were meritless. Again, this is a hard standard to meet, because an attorney can always say that they are arguing for an extension of existing law, or even reversing existing law.

      But the sheer number of problems, including mootness, standing, immunity, etc., along with the failure to state a claim … that’s the failure to advance a tenable claim. And that’s only one of the issues.

      More clear?

      1. Reminded me of the old law school tale (I think Holmes quoted).

        Farmer Brown sues his neighbor Farmer Smith. “I lent you my goat, I want it back.”

        Answers Farmer Smith: “You did not lend it to me, you lent it to Farmer Jones. And anyway I gave it back already. And besides, the goat died, not my fault.”

  13. Kevin Underhill actually did the math on how much this sanctions order weighs, and reckons it’s more than a pound. Unfortunately, I think he assumed that you’d print the order on one side of the paper only, which obviously no respectable lawyer would do.

    https://loweringthebar.net/2021/08/kraken-sanctions-order-weighs-a-pound.html

    1. Respectable lawyers read opinions on-screen. Does not weigh much that way.

      1. Electrons have weight, and it takes a constant stream of them to make a Cathode-ray tube work.

  14. When I was a government attorney litigating tax deficiency and tax refund cases, I frequently faced lawyers who used the tactics that the judge in this instance is condemning. The federal judges and magistrates I worked with were quite happy with what those lawyers were doing. Indeed, they were happy to allow those lawyers to file ethics charges against me for the horrible insult of filing a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in a case.

    Litigation has become an ugly realm of malice and gamesmanship. I am done with it.

    1. It all depends on your politics not the law

    2. ….um, this doesn’t make sense, at all.

      On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog, and I don’t know where you practiced, but generally-

      1. Judges (and federal magistrates) do not, under any circumstance, have a say in attorneys filing ethics (bar) complaints against each other. They can, as they did here, refer a case to the bar, but attorneys and lay people can always file a complaint.

      2. In my experience and also based on conversations with others, I would never say that the federal judiciary is biased against the government’s attorneys.

    1. Read the opinion. It’s linked.

      I skimmed it. I liked how one of the lawyers offered as justification for averring false stuff the the Court that she hadn’t read what she filed.

      1. It’s all pretty bad.

        One attorney claimed he did the due diligence required by reviewing the 810 page complaint in just over an hour – mad respect for the billing, but c’mon.

        Wood said he had no idea the action was going on, never looked at any documents, and he was never served with the sanctions; as the Court stated, “…Wood is not credible.” That happens when you are taking credit for filing the lawsuit in other jurisdictions.

        Finally, all this could have been avoided by just observing the safe harbor.

      2. I asked Darth to provide examples of the tactics employed by opposing counsel he encountered.

        As for the opinion, I perused it. Yes, much of the conduct of plaintiffs’ counsel is sanctionable.

        1. Your comment didn’t “nest” under Darth’s, so it didn’t seem to be a reply to him. It appeared as a reply to the OP.

          1. I thought that I had tapped Reply. My error.

            As for the conduct of plaintiffs’ counsel, it is, inter alia, embarrassingly amateurish and condign of contempt.

      3. “I liked how one of the lawyers offered as justification for averring false stuff the the Court that she hadn’t read what she filed.”

        In my experience, that characterizes about half of the bar.

        1. 1. You’re not supposed to say the quiet part out loud.

          2. If you didn’t read it when you filed it, you probably should when get the Rule 11 Motion. After all, you get 21 days to read it then, right? 😉

          1. That is the point at which the attorney who claimed that she had not read the complaint should have channeled her inner Ronnie Van Zant and pleaded with the court:

            Don’t want no trouble with you,
            And I know you don’t owe me,
            But I wish you’d let me,
            Ask one favor from you,

            Oh, wont you,
            Gimmie three steps, gimmie three steps, judge…

            1. By the time the sanctions motion has been made, asking to be let out the door is no longer timely.

  15. Now will the same judicial system “sanction” Garland for filing suits against states that have Voter ID laws. Baseless claims of racism.

    Jonathan your thoughts?

    1. He is my thoughts.

      I am sure that AG Garland is prepared to show evidence of his claims. This will not be hard as it has been established that most of the laws are designed to disenfranchise minority voters.

      The difference is that Powell and other filed lawsuits and when asked to provide evidence said that their actions were opinions and that only morons would take their arguments seriously. They abused their positions.

      1. Evidence that getting an ID, which is needed to survive in life is racist. Yea that’s a Kraken. But let’s dismiss it without investigating and then sanction him. That would be equivalent.

        1. Stuff that is not yet supported is not the same as stuff that is affirmatively unsupported.

        2. ID are not the question here, the question is are you prepared to back up your assertions made in court. I see nothing to suggest AG Garland would not back up his words. Powell on the other hand suggested that only morons would belief her her assertions on election fraud.

        3. “ Evidence that getting an ID, which is needed to survive in life is racist.”

          No. The issue is whether the specifics of the GA election law have the purpose and effect of depriving certain races of their right to vote. That’s completely cognizable under the VRA and not sanctionable.

        4. “Evidence that getting an ID, which is needed to survive in life”

          YMMV. Getting a government-issued ID when you already have something else is a waste of time and resources. For example, a lot of college students have college ID cards that give them access to all the resources they need at school, but don’t work in a bar (not a problem becuase they’re too young to drink anyway.) and don’t work to drive a car (cost of car, gas, insurance is more than most college students have, if mommy/daddy isn’t providing)
          Plus, it can be hard to pull all the required documents together quickly for a number of non-nefarious reasons.

          I’ll believe that voter-ID isn’t a vote-suppression tactic if, but only if, whichever Republican-led legislature makes it a priority to deliver to each voter, at no charge, an ID that meets the new requirements to cast a ballot, to each person who is already a voter, AND any and all attempts to deregister a voter include a due process hearing wherein the voter may show up, present evidence of citizenship, residency, and current heartbeat. For some reason, that isn’t what those Republican-led legislatures have chosen to do.

  16. Actually, Antrim County proved, it IS all about Election Fraud.

  17. I remember when the various Kraken and Kraken-adjacent lawsuits were filed, a lot of people correctly observed that they would have trouble because courts require … evidence. And viable legal theories.

    I also remember that a lot of attorneys wouldn’t touch these with a 10′ pole because they were so stupid it was commonly reported that they were likely to result in sanctions. It wasn’t a secret.

    I have to admit- I was skeptical. Not because they should be sanction, but just because most courts don’t want the added overhead of the sanctions. So it is somewhat gratifying to see the courts police this nonsense.

  18. I very much appreciate the judge’s differentiation between the average citizen and a member of the court system. I think this is the key argument. When you are a member of the system you have obligations and responsibilities above those of the average citizen. You can not use you access to the court system and them argue that you are no different than anyone else.

    1. Wow, a sane comment.

  19. “Kraken” is the wrong mythological beast. These guys are Hydra. Cut off one head and two more grow in its place, somehow without adding any brain power.

    Hail Hydra!

  20. In all of this brouhaha, have any of the affidavit swearers alleging witnessed election fraud or irregularities been hit with perjury charges yet?

    1. Read the opinion before you strap on your tin foil. You one of those disappointed Trump wasn’t reinstated this week?

      One of the issue is the affidavits offered do not provide evidence for what the attorneys claim they prove.

      IOW, the affidavits don’t alleged election fraud at all, as it turns out.

      1. I haven’t been following these cases, which is why I ask the question. Not in the instant case necessarily, but in general. I understand your claim about the affidavits in this case. I’m just wondering if there have been any affiants facing perjury allegations or charges, or who perhaps made more weighty claims where perjury ought to be considered.

        As an example, see the affidavits and allegations in this complaint.

        https://www.greatlakesjc.org/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Costantino-FINAL-With-Exhibits.pdf

        Just one example from several there: “On November 4, 2020, I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive
        date [sic] that were not in the QVF as if they had been received on or before November 3, 2020. I was told to alter the information in the QVF to falsely show that the absentee ballots had been received in time to be valid. I estimate that this was done to thousands of ballots.”

        Another widely discussed example was the Fulton County GA affidavits claiming there were boxes full of unfolded ballots with uniform selections and on different paper.

        I realize that I could go and read all of the court filings, but who wants to do that? I just figured someone here followed this stuff as I haven’t.

          1. She was a career civil servant. But it’s true, naming names certainly would have added to the credibility of her allegations.

            1. Not really. She also provided testimony, later, that was rubbished as well.

              The issue is that she was a moron. I’m being nice. Wait, no I’m not. More nicely put, the issue was that she had never done this before, and immediately made these claims because she had no idea what was going on. Claims that anyone with half a brain, or relevant experience in that locality’s elections, knew were BS.

              And that goes to the problems with bringing perjury charges. First, most of the affidavits are … we will say nicely … mischaracterized by the legal pleadings, which is bad! But, and this is just as important, it’s really hard to prove someone knowingly lied on an affidavit, as opposed to simply just being a moron.

              Sad, but true. Which is also part of the distinction that this court made between the obligations of attorneys, and those of lay people. Because, and I don’t want to shock you here, in 99% of the time (or more), its the ATTORNEYS who are writing the affidavits.

            2. Also, M L, see https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/25/federal-judge-beaches-kraken-and-orders-sanctions/#comment-9068362

              I very much appreciate the judge’s differentiation between the average citizen and a member of the court system. I think this is the key argument. When you are a member of the system you have obligations and responsibilities above those of the average citizen.

              No double standard here, my big lie believing pal.

  21. I just came here to laugh at DavidBehar.

    I’m still trying to decide what the best part is: the actual ruling against Kraken; the fact the the judge was an Obama appointee (guaranteed to send Behar into orbit); the fact that Trump lost the election; or, the fact that David is powerless to do anything about my mockery.

    1. Attention span of a goldfish, that guy’s already forgotten all about it. Some other shiny thing has his attention now.

  22. I personally think these people got off light, especially if they don’t run into disbarment or other harsh disciplinary action.

    They have to pay the defendants’ costs? So what? They can split that up among themselves and not get hit too hard. What about the cost of the judge’s time, and that of court staff? What about the cost of delays to other cases? What about something actually punitive?

    1. The real kicker is the referral to the bar. It depends on the jurisdiction, but some take judicial referrals (since they happen so rarely) pretty pretty seriously.

      The rest of it, s you correctly note, it likely window dressing. Especially because they can likely GoFundMe or whatever.

      1. The “I am not a sheep!” sheep will line up to contribute.

  23. Vexatious multiplication of proceedings for not voluntarily dismissing at a date speculatively mooted as being the point of mootness, and forcing a motion apiece on the question. Somewhere, the ghost of an old Dickensian Chancery judge is having a good smile.

    Mr. D.

  24. “I suspect the sanctioned attorneys will appeal.” The question is who is going to represent them, and whether it is doable without incurring sanctions for a frivolous appeal? The judge’s factual findings would, I think, have to be “clearly erroneous” and the imposition of sanctions found to be an abuse of discretion. Other than whether Wood knew his name was on the suit or not, and whether Wood was properly served, there do not seem to be any disputed issues of fact. On Wood the court made a credibility finding that is very hard to reverse, especially since Wood declined to file any affidavits in his defense. All counsel said they did nothing to investigate the claims, but filed ’em anyway. Can anyone discern a non-frivolous appealable issue? It seems that Appellate Rule 38 is an objective test and does not require bad faith.

    1. Rudy’s lawyer(s) decided to double down on the conspiracy theory. The problem with conspiracy theorists as lawyers is that they have a demonstrated disability with regards to distinguishing fantasy and reality.

Please to post comments