Thread by @RMFifthCircuit

I’m also listening.

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1414561524757192705

Sidney Powell and Lyn Wood seem to have hired separate counsel for the sanctions hearing.

So far we are just doing roll call.

The Judge is going to make some opening remarks, she says, about the sanctions motions against the “Kraken” lawyers.

The Court starts by noting that she is satisfied that there’s enough warning of sanctions to impose them. That’s a due process sort of issue that can cause sanctions to be vacated on appeal.

We’re starting with an objection by Kraken Counsel to the Court’s power under Rule 11 to impose sanctions after dismissal of the case.

The judge asks what authority counsel has for that argument, and he is “not prepared” to discuss that. Ok, then.

In any event, it doesn’t matter much - the Court has what’s called inherent power to impose sanctions. It does not need to rely on just Rule 11. So this skirmish about whether Rule 11 can apply post-dismissal may end up being unimportant.

One of the plaintiff’s lawyers says she did not get service of the Rule 11 motion, because all she worked for Sydney Powell she “didn’t really work there” but she was in DC.

This is …implausible.

Court’s first question: “who wrote the Complaint?”

The answer is Howard Kleinhandler and Sidney Powell.

Some other people helped, we are told.

Lin Wood jumps into say he “played no role in the drafting of the Complaint.”

Now everyone jumping up and down saying they didn’t write the complaint.

Next: “what authority enabled this a court to issue any of the relief sought in this case, such a decertifying the election result?”

She’s saying, in other words, there was no possible basis to file the Complaint.

Lawyer says Bush v Gore and the Constitution.

“What is the authority specifically that allows a court to *decertify* the election?”

All he’s got is Bush v Gore. He claims no one knew that sort relief didn’t exist.

(This is preposterous)

Mr. Fink from The City of Detroit explains that this is ridiculous. This was “from the beginning to the end an attempt to get an extrajudicial message out.”

We have our first mention of Hitler and Hugo Chavez - apparently, filing frivolous challenges in court is what makes our elections different than Hitler’s.

That’s the Kraken lawyer.

“Do you agree state law establishes an extensive procedure for challenging elections? And did you use them?”

No. The answer is no.

Sidney Powell has tried to turn her camera off.

Some other lawyer claims that the authority theCourt had to vacate the entire election was “fraud.”

This is a conspiracy theorist talking point: that “fraud” could “vitiate” the entire election.

The Court asks, do you have any actual authority for this “fraud” theory?

It was Kleinhandler. He “has it, but it’s not with him.”

Next question: “why did the Plaintiffs wait for three weeks after the election to seek this constitutional relief?”

Kraken lawyer claims it was actually filed too early. No idea what this possibly means.

Detroit lawyer notes that the complaint was an “embarrassment to the legal profession.”

True.

Kleinhandler wants to object about something.

He wants to say that they only knew there was “irregularities” until after the election. “It took us time to put together the Spyder affidavit.”

Ah. Indeed. The Spyder affidavit.

Kleinhandler is legit bananas it seems clear.

Kleinhandler claims the reason the reason his complaint was nonsense was because of a pdf conversion error.

Apparently this caused him to write frivolous nonsense.

The court’s next Q was about mootness. “Didn’t you tell SCOTUS this case would be moot if the electors voted, and you filed this case after?”

Ie, wasn’t this case completely moot when it was filed?

Kraken lawyer claims what saves him is that his clients became fake electors.

“How you can think electing themselves as electors changes anything?”

Err, yes. Also, the Court points out this is a new lie they just came up with.

Kraken lawyer sort of mocks the judge’s use of “air quotes” (wut) and then gives a nonsense answer.

The Court asks “are you arguing this reinvigorating point for the first time?”

Campbell now claims the Court has no jurisdiction over claims made in other courts. Then the Kraken lawyer tries to shout over the judge when she moves on. “No” shouts the judge.

The Court now says it is moving to assessing merits of the things they filed.

“Do you believe the lawyer has an obligation to review the plausibility of the allegations before signing it?”

Yes.

“Who read the affidavits before filing the complaint?”

Kleinhandler says yes.

Lin Wood says again he looked at nothing. His name was on it, but he didn’t read the complaint or the affidavits.

That’s not… an answer. You can’t just Willy nilly out your name on complaints without reading them.

Wood claims he never told Sidney Powell she was allowed to use his name on the complaint. He’s not being very straight with the Court, though. It’s all very squirrelly.

Detroit says that Wood said in public he was involved in this case in another litigation.

Lin Wood claims “he can’t withdraw from something he wasn’t involved with.”

The Court asks “did you ever bother to tell the court you weren’t involved?”

Wood says “you knew I wasn’t involved, because you didn’t move pro hac.”

The Court says “your name was on the complaint.”

Lin Wood is again trying to yell over the judge.

Detroit now says “we served Lin Wood with a rule 11 notice on December 15” and he could have withdrawn then. It also ended up on Twitter, and Mr. Wood posted a tweet about it. He knew.”

Sidney Powell says she specifically asked Lin Wood for his permission to be on the complaint.

The court to Kleinhandler: “did you speak to Mr. Wood?”

He doesn’t know.

“Who spoke to Joshua Merit before his affidavit?”

Kleinhandler raises his hand.

“Did you speak to him about the sources of his facts?”

Kleinhandler says something about how he can’t disclose all the secret work he did was.

Kleinhandler says all of Merit’s conclusions were based on secret knowledge he had, not on what he put in his affidavit.

Ok, then.

“Whose decision was it to identify ‘Spyder’ as a us military operative?”

They say it was his own decision.

Kleinhandler claims Spyder somehow wrote the entire affidavit on his own.

The court next wants to know who reviewed the Briggs report and the underlying survey data.

The kraken lawyers say some nonsense about how the case has not yet reached an evidentiary stage.

The Court’s next question is about Mr. Ramslin’s affidavit. “Did anyone question the 780% turnout numbers in his affidavit? Did anyone feel that type of representation need to be questioned?”

Kleinhandler says he did question it but was told they were right.

“How about his claim that there were votes switched because of hand counts?”

Krakens are fumbling around. Detroit points out it is unbelievable they have no idea what the court is talking about, after this was all briefed.

Now the Krakens say they heard something about a hand recount, but not an actual hand recount, so that justifies this claim.

The defense the Krakens are offering on these obvious misstatements is so preposterous it's hard to even state it.

They're refusing to understand that the problem is not what these witnesses would actually say, but what they should have done once they saw the statements were preposterous.

The Court then moves on to the affidavits in the Amended Complaint.

"Plaintiffs alleged that Michigan added tens of thousands of votes for Joe Bide, based on several affidavits."

Who prepared this affidavit, says the Court?

No one seems to know.

"What is the basis for concluding it was tens of thousands of ballots and what did counsel do to investigate?"

Kraken counsel says it could have looked like that to the affiant.

The Court points out that's not the point. "What did you do to investigate these statements? Did you ask this affiant how he knew it was tens of thousands of ballots?"

Kleinhandler jumps in to say he just took it from another case. This was a bad answer.

It is unbelievable to tell a federal court that you just grabbed an affidavit from some other case and put it in your case.

Detroit lawyer knows exactly where it is from, and points out everyone knew it was completely false.

This affidavit was filed the week of the election, Detroit says, and the Kraken didn't look into it at all.

The Court is about to take a break, and she has more areas of questioning afterwards.

A Kraken lawyer says again there have to be witnesses examined.

That has literally nothing to do with anything.

The main Kraken lawyer says, unbelievably, that you should be able to trust an affidavit filed in another case because of lawyer's oaths.

A Kraken lawyer. Says you should trust lawyer's oaths.

Incredible.

At halftime, my impression is that the defenses offered here are totally shameful for the most part.

After the break, Lin Wood begins by saying there is no real jurisdiction over him, because he did not sign this Complaint and had nothing to do with the Complaint. "Any lawyer on these pleadings will affirm I did not have any input into these pleadings."

The Judge will allow Lin Wood to submit a brief on this issue.

The Judge is now moving onto the Carone affidavit. This is the Trump campaign's "star" witness about the vans.

washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12…

The Judge asks, "who spoke to Ms. Carone?"

Someone named Ms. Lambert pipes up, but not about this Complaint.

The answer is, no one spoke to her, except Kleinhandler says he spoke to the expert who spoke to her.

So no one.

The Judge notes that Carone's only argument was a "coincidence." The Court asks " Is a coincidence the basis of an argument you can make in Court?"

The answer, in this sort of context, is no. Just for the record.

The Kraken lawyer's argument that we can just plead a case based on what people said without any analysis that the allegations are plausible is just wrong.

Fink finally points out that you cannot rely on affidavits filed in different cases with impunity. That's not how it works.

This Haller person (one of the Krakens) just does not understand what the Court is asking or saying. It's incredible.

She keeps saying these affidavits are not hearsay. What difference could that possibly make? It's nothing to do with evidence.

The professional responsibility lawyer they hired (Campbell) is trying, but the arguments he's making are so weak they're laughable to me.

The Court moves to the Connarn affidavit, which was supported by third-hand knowledge. "Is it appropriate to rely on third-hand evidence to make your case?"

Campbell says he's "surprised" the judge is troubled.

The Court says "Oh REALLY." And then asks "did anyone bother to try to find the other election worker mentioned here?"

No. They didn't.

We're now on the Jessie Jacobs Affidavit. "Did anyone look into the allegation made in this affidavit about predating absentee ballots?"

Haller says she doesn't know, but agrees she was working on the affidavit.

Aha, she doesn't know, Detroit lawyer Fink says, because it's another affidavit from a different case.

Haller is back on her "there needs to be an evidentiary hearing" train.

The merits of that stupid argument have not become any less stupid in the 3 minutes since it was last made.

Haller appears to believe that bad faith is when you admit to being a liar.

Haller now says "have YOU spoken to this witness?"

The Court says "I don't think that is a relevant question."

Haller says, once again, the evidentiary hearing thing. Heavens.

Now the Court is on the Boehmer affidavit, which alleges that Michigan changed votes in favor of Biden. The Court notes that the Complaint calls this "eyewitness testimony" of vote changing.

The Court asks what is the basis of that belief?

Campbell says "it could have meant the witness saw it, the affidavit doesn't say he didn't see it."

Someone also says "It's called an evidentiary hearing" sarcastically.

You don't talk like that to a federal judge. That's amazing.

Haller, in response to another question, again that she wants an evidentiary hearing.

I think she will keep saying this for all time until the end of time.

Kleinhandler is talking again. It's total nonsense.

The Court now moves onto the allegations that Michigan counted ineligible affidavits, including Helminin and Mandelbaum and Rose and Sitek, among others.

Again, the Court asks, "who looked into these affidavits?"

Haller is asking for the documents to be put on the screen.

You should know what affidavits the judge is asking about when you're in front of the court on sanctions. Just saying.

The Court moves on to the allegations that Michigan counted ballots without signatures or postmarks, based on some affidavits. These are Brunnell, Spalding, and Sherer affidavits.

"Did any of the affiants indicate that the ballots in question were for President Biden?"

We're now on the Larsen affidavit, which said there were violations of ballot secrecy.

"Do counsel agree that Larsen being 'perplexed' is not evidence of his substantive allegations?"

Campbell just gave an incredibly disrespectful answer to the Court. Just shocking behavior. Basically, he said something like "I can't believe you're wasting your own time on these sanctions."

The Court made absolutely clear she was not amused.

Haller demands her evidentiary hearing again. She has no idea what she's talking about. Genuinely. 0.

The Court is "surprised counsel came to a sanctions hearing without the documents they filed to answer my questions."

This is in response to Haller's claim that she wants the document on the screen.

I too was surprised.

If I said what Campbell said above to a judge I would expect to be sanctioned.

This is "bring a toothbrush to court" territory where I practice.

I want to be clear here: the Court is entering some kind of sanctions against these lawyers. Which lawyers, exactly, I don't know. How severe, I don't know. But the Court has made up its mind about the lying.

OK, I have to sign off for a while. Duty calls. Follow the other folks, like @questauthority and @AkivaMCohen

OK, I'm back for the conclusion. This sounds like Fink unleashing on the Kraken.

He asks for: reimbursment for money to defend the claim and that the sanction is strong enough to deter misconduct, and the lawyers should never be allowed to appear in any court in our state.

Fink also asks for referrals to the state bars, and that these lawyers be barred from practicing in this district. These last two are precisely right. They must be disbarred in at least ED Michigan.

Lin Wood is trying to talk over the judge. He's showing his real nature.

The Court is now wrapping up. The court will issue an opinion and order. In the interim the Court will issue a supplemental briefing order.

Sidney Powell is giving some speech about how she isn't liable but also taking "full responsibility" for the briefs. She even says her conduct was "consistent with the highest traditions of law" and says this case is like Brown v. Board (sort of).

What a charlatan.

That's it, we're done. Supplemental briefs soon. I'm sure they will be Nonsense Sandwiches. Then a sanctions order. We'll see how severe it is.

I want to note: there was not a word I heard in the hearing (I was off for a while) where a single one of these people apologized for their conduct.

They could have said, "we were proceeding in good faith, but we understand it went off the rails."

That's not a good answer, but it's something you can see in the face of such a situation. You can ask for forgiveness. You can explain how you ended up in this mess.

None of that. Just - everything we did was fine.

So be it.

Yes, Powell said this. It was tremendously ill advised, like much of what these people said.

https://twitter.com/PeterProws/status/1414654749048119297?s=20