Thread by @AkivaMCohen

Sooooo ... let's review

We begin with the table of contents. It suggests Wood is arguing two issues: 1) I never authorized Sidney Powell to put my name on this complaint; 2) I didn't violate a court order by sending out a clip of the hearing on Telegram. That second one is, of course, new.

Wait - no. This isn't Wood's supplemental brief on the sanctions motion. The court actually ordered him to show cause why he shouldn't be sanctioned for the video thing, entirely separately. I missed that.

Looks like Wood is using the motion as an opportunity for extra briefing on his "I never participated in this case at all, your Honor" defense on the main sanctions motion, which is a very smart strategic move.

Let's take a look at the relevant local rule:

Oh ... this is a problem.

Look, Wood is basing his first argument on the "I wasn't practicing here". But the text of the rule doesn't limit subsection (d) discipline to attorneys who are admitted or practicing in EDMI. It just says "attorneys" - which Wood definitely is.

Now contrast that with subsection (c), for example, which is expressly limited to attorneys who are admitted or practicing in EDMI

I suppose there's an argument (and we'll see if Wood's counsel makes it) that because Sub (d) is "in addition to" the discipline imposed under Sub (c), then Sub (d) only applies to attorneys in the same category as Sub (c) (i.e. folks admitted or practicing before the court)

But it's also plausible to read that differently: Sub (c) applies to attorneys admitted and practicing (they are the only ones who can be referred for discipline) while Sub (d) applies to all attorneys, even those who appear as parties or witnesses.

Frankly, I think the latter is the better reading from a policy perspective - being an attorney brings with it responsibilities to the court even when we're not there in our capacity as attorneys - but the former has some textual basis. So ... let's see.

And here's the summary of Wood's argument from his intro.

FYI, I have a 10am client call, so this will be interrupted

And on substance ... frankly, this is a damn good argument. Forget, for a second, the thing about the meaning of "broadcast". If the recording is available to the world on YouTube, why in the world should anyone care that Lin Wood circulated a clip?

It's not necessarily a meaningful legal argument - a court order is a court order - which is why he's not making it expressly. But as a practical matter, it may impact the sanction if and when it's awarded.

Meeting starting now.

On to the statement of facts. I'll be honest, I hate this. Don't put argument in your statement of facts. Yes, you want to draft it persuasively. But you need to limit yourself to setting out the facts you are going to later use to argue your points. This is not helpful

No, seriously, what even is happening here? This is a statement of facts. "The facts cited above bear repeating here"? No. No they do not. Also, where are your citations? Why isn't there a declaration from Wood supporting "I didn't post a video, here's what I did"?

See all those highlighted period? That's where some form of citation should be to say "court, look at this piece of evidence to verify these factual claims"

Also, can you not play a video in a Telegram "retweet"? This is disingenuous as hell unless Telegram is dumb

OK, on to the argument. Yep, they're arguing that 83.22(c) defines the universe of attorneys who can be subject to discipline. But for some reason, they don't make the textual argument, they just take it as a given that 83.22(d) only applies to the same universe. That's a mistake

The rest of this is just a rehash of the "I wasn't supposed to be on the complaint, didn't authorize it" argument, so we'll skip that and move on to broadcasting. What is "broadcasting"? The rule doesn't say

Since there's no special definition, we're in the land of ordinary meaning, so we look at dictionaries. Here's their pitch.

Here's a "different" definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary, which I'd argue isn't really different so much as "unpacked"

This, however, is a MUCH better argument. The rule is about use of electronic devices in the court, NOT a bar on parties linking to or tweeting out video from other sources outside of court.

Frankly, I think that's right

And then he goes and torches it with this disingenuous nonsense. Wood didn't *link* the video. Unless I'm misremembering the deleted post, it was watchable within his Telegram post. Why are you going down this road?

Anyway, that's all of it. /end

If this is the case, then he's definitely not broadcasting, IMO

And it was a video, and I'm back to wondering why the lawyer is going this stupidly unnecessary disingenuous road