Kraken Sanctions Hearing Devolves Into Screaming S
Post# of 123541
(Total Views: 381)
Posted On: 07/12/2021 8:28:33 PM
Re: Goodspeed65 #65872
Kraken Sanctions Hearing Devolves Into Screaming Sh*tshow Debacle
Who could have predicted this shocking turn of events?
By Elizabeth Dye
on July 12, 2021 at 3:46 PM
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sancti...w-debacle/
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Hmmm, there's a resemblance. Can't you just hear Sidney barking at the judge, 'I know that Miss Judge, I'm not stupid you know!'
U.S. District Judge Linda Parker is having a rough day, and so is her court reporter. During a six-hour slugfest sanctions hearing in the Michigan “Kraken” case, the team worked to corral a dozen screaming, interrupting, crying, filibustering lawyers. It was worse than herding cats — at least cats are cute.
The City of Detroit and state of Michigan requested sanctions, including fines and referral for disbarment for lawyers Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, Lin Wood, Stefanie Lambert Juntilla, Julia Haller, and a handful of their squidlet associates.
The gravamen of the claim was that the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to conduct the most basic due diligence to vet the “evidence” in support of their fantastical claims of a stolen election.
“How could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?” Judge Parker asked, referring to one particularly ridiculous document alleging that the witness saw someone deliver a batch of ballots in a clear plastic bag and thus suspected foul play.
“Doesn’t counsel also have an obligation to evaluate this and say ‘What exactly is this going to prove?'” the court asked.
Kraken lawyer Julia Haller, who appeared at multiple points to be crying, stammered that it would be unethical for them to alter an affidavit. Which is true, but does nothing to counter the argument that the attorneys who presented it as factually accurate failed in their obligation to figure out if the conduct alleged was illegal. Much less to determine if it actually happened.
Haller spent most of the day keening for an evidentiary hearing to test the validity of affidavits that were false on their face and were rejected by other courts, seemingly unaware that the issue at hand is not the truth or falsity of the affiants’ claims, but the attorneys’ failure to ensure that they weren’t shoveling a pile of incendiary bullshit onto the federal docket.
For his part, Lin Wood insisted that the court has no jurisdiction over him because, although he agreed to allow his name to appear on the original complaint, he was just the “litigation counsel,” and the case was dismissed before a trial. Which is of a piece with the posture of a legal team who argued that electronic signatures don’t count as appearing in the case.
Wood denied that he’d been served, despite the protests from David Fink, counsel for the City of Detroit, that he had both proof of service and multiple social media posts by Wood referring to the case and his participation in it.
Wood, who repeatedly wandered off and turned his back on the court, finished strong by literally shouting at the judge that he had a due process right to defend himself against Fink’s accusation that the allegations in the case contributed to the January 6 armed insurrection.
Powell, who sat stone faced and furious throughout most of the hearing, took the position that spamming the docket with bogus affidavits was evidence in and of itself of due diligence. It wasn’t her job to determine whether her expert witness was who he said he was — he wasn’t — since the veracity of his affidavit should be subject to “the crucible of an evidentiary hearing.”
Attorney Donald Campbell mounted a spirited defense of Powell, Woods, Kleinhendler, and Lambert Juntilla, although client control proved a challenge, particularly with respect to Woods and Kleinhendler. But at times Campbell appeared to antagonize the court himself.
“I am not a potted plant!” he shouted during a particularly contentious exchange in which the judge cautioned him not to question “my procedures.”
“I am concerned by the disrespect shown to the court,” interjected David Fink. And every other lawyer tuning it at home and on Twitter.
Lambert Juntilla has also wowed the profession, submitting a filing last week arguing that it was well established that attorneys have a free speech right to say any insane crap as they zealously advocate for their clients.
[Plaintiffs’ attorneys] speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances is a First Amendment right protected by a line of US Supreme Court cases too numerous to mention and any attempt to string cite them here would be insulting to all involved.
In fact, Judge Parker would not be “insulted.” Turns out, she’d like some evidence to support that claim, please and thank you.
But Howard Kleinhendler won the Crazy Lawyer contest amid a crowded field of contenders. From telling the court that it had no authority over him to blaming his own crappy briefs on a botched conversion from Word to PDF, he seemed to be on a mission to turn a parking ticket into a capital sentence.
Repeatedly speaking over both opposing counsel and even the judge herself, he argued that U.S. v. Throckmorton’s holding that “fraud vitiates everything” entitled plaintiffs to skip the statutory procedures for election challenges and demand that courts overturn the results.
He doggedly insisted that the alternate slate of electors, i.e. the cosplay weirdos who swore themselves in on the steps of the legislature, justified continuing the case long after the election was certified and the results sent to the national archivist. And he gave no quarter on the bogus affidavits and defective witnesses, alleging that affidavits docketed in other cases were presumptively true, even when immediately proved to be otherwise.
In short, it was batshit. And while the parties were granted a two-week reprieve to file briefs in support of their positions and for the Michigan defendants to prove that they actually served notice of the Rule 11 motions, it sure as hell looks like someone is going to be in deep trouble here.
Who could have predicted this shocking turn of events?
By Elizabeth Dye
on July 12, 2021 at 3:46 PM
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/07/kraken-sancti...w-debacle/
(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Hmmm, there's a resemblance. Can't you just hear Sidney barking at the judge, 'I know that Miss Judge, I'm not stupid you know!'
U.S. District Judge Linda Parker is having a rough day, and so is her court reporter. During a six-hour slugfest sanctions hearing in the Michigan “Kraken” case, the team worked to corral a dozen screaming, interrupting, crying, filibustering lawyers. It was worse than herding cats — at least cats are cute.
The City of Detroit and state of Michigan requested sanctions, including fines and referral for disbarment for lawyers Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, Lin Wood, Stefanie Lambert Juntilla, Julia Haller, and a handful of their squidlet associates.
The gravamen of the claim was that the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to conduct the most basic due diligence to vet the “evidence” in support of their fantastical claims of a stolen election.
“How could any of you as officers of the court present this type of an affidavit?” Judge Parker asked, referring to one particularly ridiculous document alleging that the witness saw someone deliver a batch of ballots in a clear plastic bag and thus suspected foul play.
“Doesn’t counsel also have an obligation to evaluate this and say ‘What exactly is this going to prove?'” the court asked.
Kraken lawyer Julia Haller, who appeared at multiple points to be crying, stammered that it would be unethical for them to alter an affidavit. Which is true, but does nothing to counter the argument that the attorneys who presented it as factually accurate failed in their obligation to figure out if the conduct alleged was illegal. Much less to determine if it actually happened.
Haller spent most of the day keening for an evidentiary hearing to test the validity of affidavits that were false on their face and were rejected by other courts, seemingly unaware that the issue at hand is not the truth or falsity of the affiants’ claims, but the attorneys’ failure to ensure that they weren’t shoveling a pile of incendiary bullshit onto the federal docket.
For his part, Lin Wood insisted that the court has no jurisdiction over him because, although he agreed to allow his name to appear on the original complaint, he was just the “litigation counsel,” and the case was dismissed before a trial. Which is of a piece with the posture of a legal team who argued that electronic signatures don’t count as appearing in the case.
Wood denied that he’d been served, despite the protests from David Fink, counsel for the City of Detroit, that he had both proof of service and multiple social media posts by Wood referring to the case and his participation in it.
Wood, who repeatedly wandered off and turned his back on the court, finished strong by literally shouting at the judge that he had a due process right to defend himself against Fink’s accusation that the allegations in the case contributed to the January 6 armed insurrection.
Powell, who sat stone faced and furious throughout most of the hearing, took the position that spamming the docket with bogus affidavits was evidence in and of itself of due diligence. It wasn’t her job to determine whether her expert witness was who he said he was — he wasn’t — since the veracity of his affidavit should be subject to “the crucible of an evidentiary hearing.”
Attorney Donald Campbell mounted a spirited defense of Powell, Woods, Kleinhendler, and Lambert Juntilla, although client control proved a challenge, particularly with respect to Woods and Kleinhendler. But at times Campbell appeared to antagonize the court himself.
“I am not a potted plant!” he shouted during a particularly contentious exchange in which the judge cautioned him not to question “my procedures.”
“I am concerned by the disrespect shown to the court,” interjected David Fink. And every other lawyer tuning it at home and on Twitter.
Lambert Juntilla has also wowed the profession, submitting a filing last week arguing that it was well established that attorneys have a free speech right to say any insane crap as they zealously advocate for their clients.
[Plaintiffs’ attorneys] speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances is a First Amendment right protected by a line of US Supreme Court cases too numerous to mention and any attempt to string cite them here would be insulting to all involved.
In fact, Judge Parker would not be “insulted.” Turns out, she’d like some evidence to support that claim, please and thank you.
But Howard Kleinhendler won the Crazy Lawyer contest amid a crowded field of contenders. From telling the court that it had no authority over him to blaming his own crappy briefs on a botched conversion from Word to PDF, he seemed to be on a mission to turn a parking ticket into a capital sentence.
Repeatedly speaking over both opposing counsel and even the judge herself, he argued that U.S. v. Throckmorton’s holding that “fraud vitiates everything” entitled plaintiffs to skip the statutory procedures for election challenges and demand that courts overturn the results.
He doggedly insisted that the alternate slate of electors, i.e. the cosplay weirdos who swore themselves in on the steps of the legislature, justified continuing the case long after the election was certified and the results sent to the national archivist. And he gave no quarter on the bogus affidavits and defective witnesses, alleging that affidavits docketed in other cases were presumptively true, even when immediately proved to be otherwise.
In short, it was batshit. And while the parties were granted a two-week reprieve to file briefs in support of their positions and for the Michigan defendants to prove that they actually served notice of the Rule 11 motions, it sure as hell looks like someone is going to be in deep trouble here.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼