Read on Twitter
OK - there's a motion for sanctions in the Michigan tentacle of the Kraken.
Let's take a look. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.78.0.pdf
Let's take a look. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.78.0.pdf
I'm a hardcore sanctions skeptic - too many years spent watching too many birthers skate away, not to mention lots of cases since. So no matter how good this motion is, I'm unlikely to put the odds of success at anything over 50/50.
That said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, and motions for sanctions were also painfully rare in the birther days. David Fink, who has been representing Detroit in multiple post-election cases, has been taking the shots.
And the Kraken cases are among the most sanctionable of the whole rotten pile.
So let's give this *checks* -YIKES- 56! page motion a gander, shall we?
So let's give this *checks* -YIKES- 56! page motion a gander, shall we?
The title alone is eye-opening. To put it mildly.
The highlighted bits are critical - they're asking for sanctions under Rule 11, which has strict rules.
Also - good writing putting this on the first page. The first thing I'd want to know if I was reading this as a clerk is whether they complied, so excellent starting point.
Also - good writing putting this on the first page. The first thing I'd want to know if I was reading this as a clerk is whether they complied, so excellent starting point.
Oh, my. Sidney and Lin still haven't applied for admission? And they mouthed off in public but didn't respond to the motion?
OK - so the next few pages are the sanctions motion itself, which is relatively bare-bones. I'm going to skip over it. I think we saw a copy of this back near the 15th (all those decades ago), and it's not critical. The memorandum is going to be where the fun is.
I will post the bit that outlines what they're asking for. The two items that I highlighted in full are reasonable asks. The 3 I flagged by highlighing the letter aren't implausible.
The rest, IMO, are non-starters.
The rest, IMO, are non-starters.
Sanctions are uncommon to begin with, and as egregious as this disaster of a lawsuit is, it's probably going to be a first offense as far as the judge is concerned. I can't see a judge launching a full-on "disbar from this court" over what is so far a single case.
