Thread by @openargs

🚨 BREAKING - SANCTIONS ORDER IN MATA V. AVIANCA CHATGPT CASE

Case dismissed and lawyers fined; I've seen that. But this order also contains something I've never seen before: the lawyers have to write each of the judges in their fake opinions & apologize. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

First, note this is a *THIRTY-FOUR* page opinion. It's not just a sanctions order; it's extensive documentary evidence of the fraud perpetrated on the court by the Levidow, Levidow & Oberman lawyers, LoDoca and Schwartz. /2

From the very beginning, it's clear that Judge Castel wasn't fooled; this wasn't just "boomers r bad at the Internets" - it was "you deliberately created fake opinions and kept going long after you knew you were caught." /3

So let's cut to the punch line first & then back up and look at the court's reasoning. Here's what the lawyers have to do: /4

So, okay, part (d) is straightforward - pay a $5,000 fine. The Court also dismissed the lawsuit via a separate order because all of the authorities raised in opposition were fraudulent nonsense. By contrast, the order on the merits is only 6 pg long! /5

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

The rest of the sanctions are designed to generate bar complaints against the attorneys. Part (a) directs the firm to send a copy of these orders to their client within 14 days AND the transcript AND LoDuca's fraudulent April 25 declaration. Ouch. /6

Mata is going to realize his lawyers gave him objectively terrible advice and representation at every step along the way. Even if this is a contingency fee case, Mata likely paid for some expenses. I would expect him to file a bar complaint & sue. But then there's this... /7

The firm has to contact EVERY judge whose name it stuck on the fake cases it submitted to the court & send them a copy of the opinion, the transcript, and the April 25 declaration as well. /8

This court didn't have the power to disbar LoDuca and Schwartz. But I would be stunned if its order didn't result in disciplinary proceedings being opened against them. /9

That's the relief; let's look at the analysis. It's BAD. One new thing we learned at the hearing is that LoDuca lied about being on vacation when he requested a week's extension to print cases. I've never met a lawyer who would lie in court about vacation. Ever. /10

Judge Castel called that "subjective bad faith" in dealing with the court. Ouch. /11

As for Schwartz, Judge Castel decided to make a specific finding of the dumbest, most embarrassing moment during the hearing, when this 35-year veteran practitioner somehow thought the F.3d Reporter meant "federal district, third department." /12

(That's not sanctionable; that's just the court dunking on you, Steve.) /13

I really really really hope Judge Castel listened to our episode where we said similar stuff about the obvious facial deficiencies in the fake "Varghese" opinion... but I'm pretty sure he just also noticed how bad it was. It wasn't hard to notice. /14

Judge Castel also noticed the fake "MIller" decision hilariously identified former disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who served under George W. Bush) as defense counsel for United Airlines, which he definitely was not, even if this case were not fake, which it is. /15

Fredo Gonzales, if you've forgotten him, was equal parts stupid and evil, and he's the guy who authored the DOJ memo authorizing the Bush administration to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. That's not relevant to this case but still, screw that guy. /16 americanprogress.org/article/albert…

Back to funny stuff. If you're wondering, 'hey, did the court also find Steve Schwartz acted in bad faith,' the answer is 'you betcha.' For one, he tried to pretend that he did real research "supplemented" with fake ChatGPT stuff, but then admitted no, it was all nonsense. /17

👇PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ONE - I know we're 18 Tweets in, but holy crap, Judge Castel found that LoDuca & Castel's conduct is on a par with **FORGERY** (!!!) /18

Despite everything, Judge Castel notes that LoDuca & Schwartz have been publicly shamed, didn't do this for overt financial gain, and are (to put it mildly) unlikely to do it again. ("Particularly if they're disbarred," the court did not add.) /19

Having to go to a judge and say "I basically forged your name on a fake opinion and then never retracted the pleading I filed in court that relied on said fake opinion" is... not great, Bob. /END

Oh and @5DollarFeminist rightly points out I missed the most important factual paragraph: /21 (and hopefully the end)