Thread by @AkivaMCohen

Oh, man, sanctions hearing in the Kraken MI is ongoing. Thought it started at 9:30

Judge now asking what authority the Plaintiffs had that the judge could grant any of that relief.

Plaintiffs' lawyers' lawyer: The constitution and Bush v. Gore. (This is a bad argument)

BTW, as I was joining, the Judge was confirming her understanding that the complaint was primarily drafted by Powell and Klownhandler

Their attorney also relying on cases involving *pre-election* challenges to election procedures.

Judge: Which of those things say I can *decertify*

Atty: Bush v. Gore. If you have the authority to stop a count, it's a reasonable argument you can start one. You disagreed, but it was a reasonable argument for extending that law

This, btw, is an excellent argument in opposition to a sanctions motion: no, we don't have anything exactly on point, but we had a basis for a good faith belief we could do this

State's lawyer is responding directly to that: They ignored the procedures for challenging an election and instead went for a collateral attack. Were using the court to message politically

Next lawyer for a defendant - come on, Bush v. Gore is completely different! None of the same claims, not after certification, skipped the recount process which is the remedy where there are fraud claims or processes for voting machine malfunction claims

Obviously, asking to redo an election or for the court to pick a winner is unprecedented (I mean, it isn't, though ... in cases where there's clear fraud or violations that can be proven, and not for president, some elections *have* had to be re-run)

Campbell (the lawyers' lawyer) is drilling down on "right to challenge the vote in court is uniquely American". Look, Bush v. Gore is the best they've got, he's doing his job hammering it. But this is a losing battle.

"We want to bring post-election process claims based on things we could have challenged pre-election, and fraud claims separate from the post-election challenge process" is frivolous on its face

"Do you agree the state law establishes an extensive procedure for challenging elections?"
"Yes"
"Did they use those procedures?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"Procedure claims not ripe until after the election"

That's absolutely false, btw. Procedure claims are ripe *only* before an election.

Powell ordered to turn her camera on

Oh God, Klownhandler decides to speak up on his own behalf. "Fraud vitiates everything, the Court can do whatever the hell it wants it has inherent authority" - Clients, man, I tell you

Klownhandler also arguing that electors can't use state election challenge procedures

Judge: Klown, can you give me authority for my supposed equitable power
Klown: Throckmorton's fraud vitiates everything

Campbell looks like he's in pain, as he should be

Judge: Why wait so long to bring the challenges, when claims were based on things known either long before election day or at the latest on election day

Campbell: "Took time to gather that info, and they didn't know Trump would lose until after the election"

Judge: OK, but 3 weeks?

Campbell: If anything, it was filed too early, it wasn't ready, obviously. This is a novel proceeding. This was the first one

(Note: I think the GA Kraken was filed first, no?)

Campbell: Also, there's a ripeness issue, because electors didn't have claims until then

Fink: This is a case about election of President. No case could warrant more serious diligence on the part of the attorneys. The claim they were pulling together the facts? All they did was submit affidavits filed in other cases.

And the procedure claims were stale by the time they filed.

"We had shorter time and did better work. What they filed was an embarrassment to the legal profession"

YEP

Judge: "At the close of this hearing I'll give everyone the opportunity to address anything they feel needs to be"

Oh lord, Klownhandler jumps in again, to say something on the delay

"Yes, there were cases before, but until vote was counted we didn't know what the claims were. Took us time to put together the Ramsland Aff, the Affidavit from Spider ..."

I can't believe I'm hearing "the affidavit from Spider" in a sanctions hearing

"It was not possible to bring this complaint before the election was certified because we are here on behalf of electors"

"We weren't trying to disenfranchise anyone. Just wanted to slow the locomotive"

Judge is so fucking done with him.

"We had an error of converting from word to PDF. Many paragraphs the spacing was changed"

Judge just asked him to stop and he tried to bulldoze her and she was like fucking stop, Klownhandler

Judge: Let's talk mootness. You acknowledged to SCOTUS that the case would be moot once the Electoral College voted?

Campbell: Yes, but we think things changed so we changed our mind and then thought it wasn't moot

Judge: So why didn't they dismiss it as moot?
Campbell: Because they are lawyers, they have to zealously advocate. And a Wisconsin judge said it's 12/14. So 12/14 was the deadline date. Then on 12/14, multiple electors voted, including our plaintiffs

Once that happened and they believed they were proper electors, it was no longer moot. Once that happened, Klownhandler and Powell decided it was not moot.

Judge: Defense counsel?
Meingast: I don't even know what to say. They TOLD SCOTUS that this would be moot as of 12/14. The fact that some of these plaintiffs mock-voted outside the capital doesn't change that, nothing this court could do.

We had already certified; if you wanted relief you would have needed to sue Congress, not us!

Judge: Mr. Campbell, please explain why you think your crazy theory isn't crazy - and why your clients argued something different until just now?

Judge: That they were elected - air quotes - how is that relevant? Never seen anything like this
Campbell: I've never heard "air quotes" in an argument
Judge [pissed as hell]: Well you've seen it.

Campbell now arguing it's the Defendants' fault the case wasn't dismissed as moot. "We couldn't dismiss as moot because we needed appellate review"

Judge: Are you arguing this for the first time, this reinvigoration thing?

Campbell: Well, this is a new question about SCOTUS

Campbell: You don't have jurisdiction to sanction them for what they told SCOTUS.

Judge just tore Campbell a new one for suggesting that she hear from Klown before Defendants' counsel

Fink: We just heard for the first time this insane theory that the clients believed they were electors. But lawyers need to use judgment. Also, if on 12/14 they decided "you know what, it's not moot" they should have filed something saying so THAT DAY

Fink: We moved to dismiss not because we wanted fees, but because the Republic was under attack. After we filed that motion and they saw all the grounds, they didn't dismiss. And they didn't dismiss after January 6 when all the electors were counted.

They admitted in their sanctions brief it was moot on 1/6. On 1/12 they asked for an extension, got two days, which made us respond to a cert petition in the interim. 1/14 they dismissed but they STILL wouldn't dismiss the appeal or the petition for cert.

And on Feb 4, Powell on Telegram says "we haven't lost every case, our Michigan case is still scheduled for conference"

Holy shit

Judge asks Campbell to respond and Klownhandler, who really does think he's a good lawyer no matter how many times judges defenestrate him, jumps in to defend the "alternative electors" theory

"Scheduled for conference", btw, means "SCOTUS is considering our request that they review"

Klownhandler: This stuff is likely to be repeated and evade review. The election was moot. But the other issues weren't

Judge: Now I'm going to ask questions in order to determine whether I should sanction you under Rule 11 or 1927

Want to know about your investigation and litigation conduct.

Question for Plaintiff's counsel or their lawyers.

Do you believe a lawyer has a duty to investigate?
Campbell: Yes

Judge: Who read Ramsland's aff?
Campbell: I don't know
Klownhandler: Falls on sword
Judge: Who else?
Johnson and Rohl raise their hands.

Rohl: Day of filing.
Hagerstrom: Day of filing
Wood: I didn't review anything. My name was put on there, but I never read it, I had no involvement whatsoever
Judge: Did you give permission to use your name?
Lin: I don't specifically recall the MI complaint but I said I'd be

available as trial counsel on anything Sid needed me for. I didn't apply for Pro Hac.

Judge: You gave your permission

Wood: I didn't know it would be included, I told her I'd help her at need.

Judge: Did you read it before it was filed?

Wood: No. Found out after

Wood:

Judge: You gave Sidney general permission to use your name if ... - finish that sentence

Wood: No permission at all. I just said if she needed a trial lawyer I'd help.

Judge: When did you learn your name was added?

Wood: Around the time of the sanctions hearing

Fink: Wood just indicated he didn't know about the sanctions motion. He was served with our 12/15 notice to withdraw the pleading, by mail and email. Any contrary claim is false

In Delaware, Mr. Wood EXPLICITLY represented to the Delaware court that he was involved in the case in Michigan. He says he's involved when it benefits him.

We gave them Rule 11 notice. He didn't withdraw

Ms. Haller: I also reviewed the Ramsland aff, wasn't sure, went and checked. I did.

Judge: Lin, want to respond?

Wood: I wasn't given any hearing in Delaware. I didn't take any position - that was a sua sponte ruling saying I was involved, not my position.

I didn't receive any notice of this. If I had been, I'd have considered withdrawing. But I can't withdraw when I never tried to be in this court.

Judge: Did you feel like you should have told me your name was on without permission at any time before today?

Wood: You knew, because I never moved Pro Hac

Judge: There's no pro hac vice status in Michigan. You need to familiarize yourself on the local rules when you come in to the district

Wood: I didn't know that, I wasn't coming in

The Court reporter is now yelling at counsel to stop interrupting.

Fink: Mr. Wood indicates what I do and do not know. What I know is we served him with a Rule 11 notice on 12/15. Emailed no bounce back. First class mail, no bounce back. Also ended up in the twitterverse, because Marc Elias tweeted it out. Then Mr. Wood tweeted "you know you're

over the target when ..."

He knew. He commented publicly. He says to the court he didn't participate in Delaware. We filed with the court his attorney's brief filed 5/5/21 in Delaware in which Wood's attorney said "he became involved" in the Michigan suit

Judge: Sidney - did you ask Lin about this case?
Powell: No specific recollection but I can't imagine I would put his name on it without his specific permission. I guess there could be a misunderstanding
Klownhandler: I don't remember it

Lin Wood is lying himself into the strictest sanctions of the batch, IMO

Judge: Who spoke to these experts to review the sources and basis for their conclusions? Josh Merritt - if it wasyou, raise your hand

Klownhandler.

Johnson: I didn't talk to any of the experts

Judge: Did you talk to him about sources?
Klown: I can't disclose his stuff publicly because he's an undercover CI for US intelligence and law enforcement.

Klown: I thought he was telling me true stuff. The one area in his aff that's under dispute was his role at the 305th MI unit. I thought it was more substantial, but he did train with it then was transferred out of it. That's also a minor and irrelevant point.

I can disclose more in camera.

Judge: Did you correct that representation?
Klown: Didn't learn about it until after the Court ruled. Also, it's not technically false

(Meingast rubs her temples as Klown emphasizes "not technically false")

Fink wants to talk, Judge is like "let me finish asking them about their other PURPORTED experts"

Dude, you're winning, shut up

Judge: OK, who spoke to Brainard?
Haller: Me. Brainard had data we cited to through Briggs. We spoke to Matt somewhat, but he had an agreement with a different attorney and our communications were limited.

Nobody else.

Judge: OK, how about Briggs?

Haller: That was me.
Judge: You spoke to him about his sources?
Haller: Yes, thoroughly vetted.

Judge: How about Watkins (this is Q, the guy who runs 8Kun). Who reviewed his aff or spoke to him?
Haller: I spoke to him, not sure when. Discussed his sources/conclusions

Klownhandler: I spoke with and met with Ramsland. I reviewed drafts, drafted the aff, asked him how comfortable with the allegations, etc.

Klown is saying he shepherded Ramsland start to finish, on both the main report and rebuttal report.

"I was comfortable that what we were

putting in the report was true and correct"

Buchannan: Emily Newman spoke to him, very limited conversation.

Powell: I spoke with Ramsland a number of times, not sure if before or after filing, same for review of aff

Judge: Anyone else have comments?

Just Fink.

F: Won't go into concerns with these affs. But what Klown said was quite disturbing that he didn't know about the Merritt aff issues until sanctions hearing. That's Spider, the guy whose identity they redacted with transparent tape

But the Washington Post article put the world on notice of who Merritt was on 12/11 when they published an article. That was while the case was pending, they had a duty to react to that disclosure

Also: Just reading the reports if they were properly vetted would have immediately told any competent attorney they were frivolous. For example: Ramsland's concerns about Antrim County ...

Judge cuts that off: I'll get into that. I have more questions

Klown: The WaPost article is false. I investigated, and Spider-man will come and testify if you want him.

Fink: Doesn't change that he knew about the lie on 305th MI before the case was dismissed

Klown: The court had already ruled 12/8, never an opportunity or ...

reason to correct in case that had been dismissed.

Judge: And was on appeal? AND WAS ON APPEAL?

Klown: Well, yes.

Judge: Why anonymous?

Klown: Look, his aff says he's scared for his life. Hence sealing

Judge: Who decided to reveal him as former MI expert?
Klown: Merritt drafted that
Judge: Did anyone ask any of the attorneys about the fact that he wasn't?
Haller/Klown: No
Powell: No

Judge: Should an attorney be sanctioned for failure to withdraw this?
Campbell: No. They didn't know when filed, it's not inaccurate but would've expanded on it if the case was still live. No Daubert, no consideration of anything in the aff, so no reason to correct

Campbell: They were really busy filing frivolous appeals on all the Kraken cases.

Judge: Did Merritt draft it on his own, w/o insistence from counsel?

Klown: Yes. I got it from him.

Haller: Let us have an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

Judge re-asks on Brainard.
Haller: it was me. Multiple communications.

Judge getting into the content.

Briggs - so what kind of survey did Brainard conduct?

Haller: He's a PhD! He did it for free! He will show up at a hearing!

Judge: That's, uh, not what I asked. I just want to know what type of survey was it?

Haller: Briggs was an expert, he'd have explained what it is. He's a Cornell PhD!

Judge: I know. And?

Haller: He'd testify to the report

Judge: Mr. Fink, why is this sanctionable?
Fink: Any due diligence would have made clear it's crazy. Report references "indefinitely confined status" - that's not a thing in Michigan. References early voting, mailed absentee ballots - neither thing happens in Michigan

He thinks if you go to FL for the winter you're a fraudulent voter. That's not a thing.

"I'm not a statistician but I play one in court. I know how to look at two numbers and see if they match." He's got statistics that are internally inconsistent

Going into details.

No law says that percentage of people who don't recall applications or getting ballots is relevant to anything. We believe anyone who closely reviewed this study knows it's useless. Can't just throw shit at the wall

Haller: Briggs can testify and Fink can question him. He's arguing as though he's a statistician. Haller sounds like she's going to cry.

Are we no longer applying the rules of civil procedure. We need a Daubert hearing.

Judge: There's a difference. Fink is pointing out that this should be obvious to you before this was submitted. Nobody is questioning the statistical analysis. But on the face, is there anything there that should've made you concerned

You'll see from my next line of questioning what those areas are.

Did anyone question the turnout numbers? Like 760% turnout in various places? Did anyone question it?

Klown: I did. I said Russ, are you sure about these numbers? He said yes. He was wrong, corrected on reply

Judge: He says Vote switching was discovered through hand counts and Michigan had no hand counts at the time. Was that corrected?

Note: I have a client call coming up at 11. At that point, you'll need to switch over to @questauthority for the rest of your litigation disaster tourism

Judge: So why mention a hand recount when there was none?

Haller: the county secretary described it as a hand recount

Klown: my understanding was that someone did a hand recount and that's how they discovered the error

Klown: You're hearing a lot of factual representations, please check the record carefully

Judge: I don't need that caution from YOU

Fink: Nobody said ANYTHING about a hand recount. Anyone with any knowledge of Michigan would have known that

Haller: It says "hand counted" not "hand recount"

Fink: it says "hand counted manual recount"

Haller: OK, yes.

Campbell: We need an evidentiary hearing

Judge: This stuff was crazy. Attempted correction was not good enough. Should an attorney be sanctioned for the failure to sufficiently correct it

Campbell: Only if the attorney has actual knowledge. No evidence the lawyers had the knowledge. Nobody had proof it was in error

Fink: Speaking only to the Detroit issue. As soon as we saw the report, we said "139%, that's crazy" so we immediately checked the public data, and saw it was false.

They had a duty to spend 30 seconds on the internet to find this out

Haller tries to interrupt and gets bounced.

Fink: These lies were put out into the world, adopted and believed so that in the infamous 1/2 phone conversation with Raffensperger, Trump explicitly referenced that 139% voting statistic. That's the consequences.

They never should have filed it. We're not looking for Daubert hearings - ANY due diligence would have let the lawyers know these were falsehoods.

Haller: Fink is citing to unnamed internet sources, no foundation, hearsay.

Fink: I'm not citing an internet source. I said 30 seconds on the internet gets you to the public record, which is not hearsay. It was always available

Judge: And I'll point out it was available on November 19

Klown: There's a photograph of the hand recount in Antrim

Meingast wants to respond, Judge wants to move on. Campbell insists Fink respond.

So now Meingast: Nope. That's not a hand count of ballots. In fact, any hand count at that time would have been illegal.

Campbell: So there WAS a hand count!

Meingast is just massaging her forehead.

Fink: Photo is probably from a later recount, but I'll get the doc

And now I have to go. Be back later if this hearing is still going

Oh my, we're still going?

We're talking about Melissa Carone (Rudy's totally sober Michigan lady)

Judge: Can coincidence serve as an evidentiary basis?
Campbell: Our expert relies on it, so it must be good enough. Subject to cross.

Oh, shit: "It may turn out we don't believe something [our witnesses] said, but we have to tell the whole story"

Fink: The complaint also referenced the Carone affidavit. She claimed she watched batches run 50 at a time, multiple times. Any expert reviewing that with the slightest knowledge of election procedures would know it's crazy, because you'd have a huge vote disparity.

They did no due diligence. They didn't check it. Judge Kenney reviewed this. Made extensive findings in his 11/13 opinion and order, specifically discussed why Carone was mistaken. Very explicitly addressed Andrew Sitto's allegations.

Just reviewing why the lawyers should have known that this stuff was nonsense.

Haller responding: Carone Aff attached to the complaint was something filed in a different court, we can't be responsible for relying on it (y'all, this is a stupid fucking argument)

Judge: Why did you attach it

Haller: B/c Ramsland cited to it

Haller: And we expected her to testify to that.

Fink: Haller is simply wrong. Aff is connected to the prior lawsuit, but their complaint quotes it

Haller: Yes, it's not hearsay! (Who said it was?)

Haller is completely out of her mind wanting a Daubert hearing

Judge: So you didn't attach it in support of your factual assertions?

Haller: Yes, we did. It's not hearsay. It's sworn

Judge: You all are the ones who placed it in the complaint

Haller: It is in support. As it's cited. We stand by the citation. I'm not sure I understand

Klownhandler: Look at the complaint as a whole. When we see a Carone aff we see "this is consistent with what our expert says, what we are hearing happened in Detroit"

Can't fault our due diligence without looking at the whole complaint, to look in isolation-

Judge: I reject the premise that's what I'm doing

Klown: just because one judge rejected what she said doesn't mean what she said was false.

Judge: Conarn affidavit now. About a challenger who told her that a hired poll worker told the challengerwas crying to him because other poll workers were telling her to change dates on ballots.

Judge: SUCH OBVIOUS HEARSAY. TRIPLE HEARSAY. No hope of ever introducing.

Campbell: It's not offered for the truth of the matter asserted - it's just context for the other stuff.

Judge: Did anyone do anything to figure out who any of these people were? <dead silence> OK. I will move on.

Jesse Jacobs aff: Instructed to pre-date absentee ballots. Estimates it was done to thousands of ballots. Did anyone inquire about what that was about?

Haller: I don't remember

Judge: You worked on that aff, right?
Haller: I don't remember
Fink: This was filed in the Constantino case. Chris Thomas put in an affidavit explaining what she had misunderstood. Judge Kenney specifically ruled on why she was wrong. Yet they put it in the complaint

Haller: But SCOMICH dissents said there should be an evidentiary hearing, we were entitled to think she might have been right and Judge Kenney was wrong

Haller, btw, is a true believer. She keeps thinking there's going to be an evidentiary hearing on their claims

Judge: What did you do to look into whether this was true?

Haller: I don't understand the question. We in good faith put this in.

Judge: Mr. Campbell, what do you think about your client's claim that they have no obligation to do diligence?

Campbell: If they have a witness who is claiming they saw something? Yes, that's enough. And other lawyers reviewed it and thought it was good enough. Plus an expert who says it fits the stats. That's all enough for a lawyer to rely on it

Fink: Ms. Haller was telling the truth when she says she doesn't understand the question. They have an obligation to dig into it once it's been rejected by another court, not just put it into the complaint

Haller: Well has Mr. Fink talked to the witness?
Judge: That's not relevant
Haller: In an evidentiary hearing you could question them!

Judge: Moving on to Balmer.

You called the Balmer affidavit "eyewitness testimony of election workers" - does an affiant's belief that something happened count as "eyewitness testimony"?

Campbell: If it's eyewitness testimony

Judge: But that's not what he says. He just says "I believe votes were changed"

What's the basis for that belief?

Campbell: I think it was just poorly drafted, he must mean he saw it

Judge: How am I supposed to figure that out?
Campbell: It's called an evidentiary hearing
Judge: It's called due diligence
Klownhandler: It was consistent with everything else we got, that's why we believed it.

We did a ton of due diligence. We are proferring it to the court, and the court can ignore it. We gave you 960 pages, this looked consistent, we believed it.

Fink: Machines can't possibly flip votes. They tabulate paper votes, they can't flip them, because there are no electronic votes in Michigan. The recount would catch it. They can't keep relying on this stupid claim

Judge: Did anyone ask Balmer if he saw this? <dead silence> Anyone? <dead silence> Let the record reflect that nobody asked about this, which was central to his affidavit.

Y'all, (1) this is my favorite ever Beuler Beuler; & (2) sanctions are coming

Judge: Does Jacobs say anything about who these supposed double voters were?

Haller: Well, at an evidentiary hearing ...

Judge: Lady, that's not the damn question. I want to know what diligence you did, and the answer seems to be "none"

Campbell: Well, maybe the basis for the allegation of allowing double voting was based on something other Jacobs aff

Fink: They keep saying things that are physically impossible

Klownhandler: Fink is testifying!

Judge: Unless you have direct information about talking to the witnesses I don't want to hear from you

Klown: We talked to the experts

OK, now multiple affs saying batches of ballots repeatedly run, Helminin, Waskilewsky, Mandelbaum, Rose, Sitek, Posch, Champagne

Did counsel ask about why this might happen?

Haller raising her hand.

Haller: asking for citations. LOOONG digression about finding this stuff

Haller: We had conversations about tabulation machines, looked at dominion handbook, reviewed MI government site

Judge: So those docs gave a reason why ballots might be run through?

Haller: Only in testing, not during counting

Fink: Nope. That's not true. Chris Thomas's affidavit explains exactly why that happens all the time.

Fink: Also, if there was a mistake, the numbers would show that, because you'd have hundreds more votes than voters

Now asking about affidavits from people who said they saw ballots counted that weren't signed. Did any affiant say that the votes were for Biden? Did counsel ask them?

Haller: Dr. Briggs expert report talks about disenfranchised voters
Klown: We don't have to show that a vote flipped. It's enough that the integrity of the vote was compromised
Judge: But this goes to your equal protection
Klown: It doesn't matter to equal protection

Judge: But you asked me to declare Trump the winner.
Klown: That wasn't aimed at that relief. That went to saying you can't certify at all

Judge: In Michigan, do votes have to be received by mail?
Haller: Secretary of State didn't follow the process! None of the absentee ballots were valid! So we can't rely on her guidance

Meingast: Absentee ballots were counted in the exact same way as every year.

LOL Haller, we object to counsel testifying. Meingast: That's a published court of appeals decision. Haller: OK, well, there was a dissent

Fink: Let me answer your question: No. You can hand deliver absentee ballots. No need for postmark. Also, pretty telling nobody from plaintiff's 9 lawyers bothered to correct Haller on how Michigan elections are run. They just didn't do any diligence on what the rules are

OK, Larsen Aff - Plaintiffs say Defendants authorized systematic violations of ballot secrecy. "Mr. Larsen observed some ballots arrived without secrecy sleeve" and claimed was perplexed by some being placed in the problem box.

Do you think that's enough?

Campbell: Yes

Judge: Wow, I'm surprised

Judge and Campbell now sparring over whether you can view these affidavits individually or should see them as cross-verifying

Holy shit, Campbell just insulted the judge's priorities and time spent. Judge: I would caution you just don't question procedures

Fink: What diligence is due might be a question for the court. But they did none at all.

Haller: Let's have an evidentiary hearing, we stand by all the affidavits

Next, Gustafson affidavit: Alleges ballots came in in improper batches in unsealed bins

Judge: Hey lawyers, what do you know about what's required?

Haller: We dunno. These are from the Constantino case. They're just information for the court.

Judge: I told you a few time, if you filed it, you need to understand it and why it's relevant.

Judge: I really don't think you get it. I'll entertain any argument you have for why that shouldn't be true.

Fink: In fact Chris Thomas filed an affidavit saying this is normal process. And they had inquiry notice. They just had to ask, any clerk would have told them that

Fink: They say they aren't experts. They didn't ask any experts either.

Campbell: But you're acknowledging the facts are true

Judge: My concern is that the affidavit is submitted to show there was something wrong in Michigan. But if they show normal election procedure, that's misleading, because it doesn't support that claim

Klownhandler: I reviewed some, someone reviewed all of them. It's just basic that if you're transporting unsealed documents they could be tampered with. Whether MI law allowed it is irrelevant

Klown: This wasn't public relations. We were acting for clients. It was not a publicity stunt.

Judge: I can draw an inference from the amount of effort you put in, so I'm trying to drill down to the level of inquiry made.

Judge: Meyers says she saw people dropping off more ballots than people. Is that allowed in Michigan?

Campbell: Yes.

Judge: Ciantar saw a young couple deliver clear plastic bags to a waiting USPS vehicle. "I've never seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps. How could

any of you as an officer of the court submit an affidavit that is such pure speculation?"

Haller: The witness just put in what he saw. It's a true affidavit. We put in a pattern of evidence that comes together, this is one piece of a pattern

Judge: You think that he is actually stating he believes his conclusions to be true when he says "could be", "appears to be" etc.

Haller: He was speaking in the present tense and took photos. We don't rewrite what they say

Judge: Didn't you have an obligation to evaluate it?

To say "there's clearly nothing in the aff that supports the conclusion"

Most importantly what is your duty here? At what point do you have a duty to say "there's not enough here"

Haller: We identified a witness as a potential source, he would testify to it. This guy didn't

jump to any conclusions. I believe he believed he saw ballots but hesitated to express that. But all true.

Sidney: We filed a massive and detailed complaint, we didn't need affs. That we filed affs shows extreme due diligence. Your questions go to their credibility, need a

trial or evidentiary hearing to test that, and you won't allow it.

Klown: We have proof positive evidence of USPS collusion and malfeasance, you won't let us present it. We had reports of malfeasance in PA. So this seemed to fit in.

We had clear, very credible evidence that the USPS, believe it or not, had mishandled, had done illegal acts in connection with the ballots they delivered in the 2020 election.

Judge: Got it. So why didn't you submit the evidence for that inflammatory claim?

Klown: At the time we just had reports. It wasn't strong enough to be evidence. If we have an evidentiary hearing we'll prove it

Judge: I'm very close to wrapping up and then you'll get a chance for a closing statement

brb, client work

Now someone is arguing that sanctions would violate the first amendment. Judge Parker just tossed that argument with citation to a Sixth Circuit decision saying LOL no

And the judge is done with questions. Open floor. Wants to ask each of them if they want supplemental briefing. "Please think long and hard about that"

Starts with Campbell: He's arguing that dictators allow votes too, it's the right to challenge results that makes the difference.

This is a remarkably silly closing.

Now claiming courts have the right to control election results. If Bush v. Gore could order a state to stop counting, then you could've ordered Michigan to start counting.

It was filed after the state deadline, but federal claims. Laches is a defense, not a deficiency in pleadings. Can't sanction on standing because you adopted the dissent from the eighth circuit; not unreasonable to think you might follow Carson majority

Now arguing the Kraken frivolity was a fair reading of Bush v. Gore, even if wrong. That's his job.

Folks doubted this election. It happens. Not the lawyers' fault

This case was driven by doubts. Part of the proper process to settle them.

It would be dangerous to sanction based on this.

Judge: Thank you. Any benefit to supplemental briefing?

Campbell: Yes, on the specifics on the affidavits.

Buchanan for Emily Newman: She was a contract attorney, no real role.

Judge: Fink, please brief whether Lin Wood & everyone else got notice. Mr. Wood & anyone else claiming you didn't get it, you'd better brief that too.

Lin wood is now arguing this. And the judge is like: Brief it.

Klownhandler, Powell, Johnson all contesting receipt of sufficient Rule 11 notice of sanctions

Stefanie Lamberth just asked to get an evidentiary hearing for "new evidence" supporting the claims in the complaint.

Sorry, Lambert-Gentilla.

Fink now talking about his partner who died of a heart attack 1/24. Touching

Fink: Rohl prepared and signed an affidavit where he says that the litigation was spearheaded by Powell and Wood. Those are Rohl's woods, submitted by Lambert-Gentilla, nobody contested that. Right now, Campbell represents both Rohl & Wood. Now there's a conflict

He's been representing all these folks for a while. Nobody corrected this. Plaintiffs have played strange game of passing the buck.

Judge: Gonna stop you. Save it for the brief so I don't have to hear responses from the other side

Moving on: Today we're grateful the court is holding this hearing. Been 6 months since the insurrection, which horrified most of us, maybe not everyone here but most of us, linked directly to the rhetoric of these lawyers.

Lin: I object, no proof

Fink: Guilty conscience

Fink: These attorneys shielded by the--

Court reporter: I'm losing my fucking mind. I need more of a break! Stop interrupting each other

I've never seen anything like this btw.

Judge: Go ahead Fink, but wrap it up.

Fink: The reason we brought this is these attorneys wielded the weapon of being a lawyer to abuse the processes of this court. Mr. Campbell was talking about what it did or didn't do, intended or didn't intend to do. Complaint sought an

order directing Gov. Whitmer to certify Trump as the winner.

We filed 1/5, and focused on the attorneys' social media conduct. Why not dismissed? Because they wanted to use it to support calls for Congress to reject the electors and Wood is using it to call for martial law

Keeping the case alive undermined trust in government, undermine Biden's presidency. One day later, 1/6 happened. Because of these claims. Nobody can undo what happened that day. But people died, came to doubt the strength of our institutions

The court can let the world know that attorneys can't use the court to support lies. Here's the relief:

1) They should pay for us fighting this
2) They should be punished
3) Strong punishment
4) Should never again be able to appear in this jurisdiction
5) Refer for discipline

6) Recommend to Eastern District chief judge that none of them be allowed to practice here again.

Wood wants to respond. Judge won't let him.

She's about to hold him in contempt if he doesn't shut up

Meingast: I agree with Fink. Nothing Plaintiffs said today changes that sanctions are warranted. Clearly kept it going after it was mooted.

Judge: Thank you all. I'll issue an opinion and order after reviewing the supplemental briefing.

Powell: We object to everything. This is crazy. I take full responsibility for the pleadings. Rohl, Wood, Hagerstrom, Newman had no role in drafting the complaint

We have practiced law with the highest standards, would file the same things again. We'd welcome an opportunity to prove our case. This is the type of thing that leaves the public with no confidence in our courts & election systems

That was almost designed to ensure she gets sanctioned, btw.

And we're adjourned

BTW, anyone who made it this far: If you appreciated the thread and are willing to donate to a good cause to say thank you: this is a friend of mine and it's a worthy place to send your money gofundme.com/f/jn-assemble