Truth or consequences may soon be more than a reference to an old game show for Michigan’s would-be Republican presidential electors and two of their lawyers who have frequently represented President Trump. The City of Detroit and others have moved for sanctions against them that may lead to significant fines and disbarment for the lawyers.

Detroit, which intervened in the original action, alleged that the lawyers Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood violated Federal law. Specifically, the city argued the lawyers had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 in a variety of ways. Rule 11 permits a judge to impose both monetary and disciplinary sanctions.

Detroit’s motion asked Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for financial penalties and referrals to the court’s chief judge for disbarment proceedings in Michigan and the home states of the participating attorneys. In Powell’s case, that would be Texas; in Woods’ it would be Georgia.

Detroit also asked the judge to levy a financial penalty “sufficient to deter future misconduct” at least equal to the amount of money that Powell and her team have raised to fund their post-election lawsuits. One section of Rule 11 permits sanctions when a pleading or other filing is presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

Detroit asserted that sanctions were appropriate here and that plaintiffs initiated the suit for improper purposes, including harassing the City and frivolously undermining “People’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.” It further argues that Detroit would have to spend taxpayer dollars to defend the motion.”

In addition, Detroit asserted that the plaintiffs violated another section of Rule 11 that says sanctions may be imposed if a claim is not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” Detroit alleged that the Court’s prior decision dismissing the case demonstrated that the claims were without merit and frivolous.

Detroit argued that sanctions were required because plaintiffs did not withdraw their claims within 21 days after being notified that Detroit believed they were unwarranted and frivolous. Instead, they ignored the request and their lawyers continued to use the media to publicize their unwarranted and frivolous claims and allegations.

Plaintiffs had previously argued that the Court should replace Michigan’s Democratic electors with the plaintiff Republican electors on a variety of grounds. The Court rejected all their arguments as without merit.

Detroit further sought sanctions under a third subsection of Rule 11, which permits penalties when facts lack evidentiary support. They asserted that the alleged facts in the complaints and motions were false and that key “factual” allegations from supposed fact witnesses have all been debunked. Some witnesses cloaked their identities while attacking democracy.

Detroit asked Judge Parker to order a financial penalty “sufficient to deter future misconduct” and that the amount “should be, at the least the amount that Plaintiffs’ counsel have collected in their fundraising campaigns, directly or through entities they own or control, for their challenges to the 2020 election.” It then asked defendants to post a $100,000 bond to cover the City’s costs and to “obtain certification from a magistrate judge that the proposed claims are not frivolous.”

Beyond Rule 11, Detroit also sought professional sanctions against Powell and Wood and their legal team under a Local Rule in the Eastern District of Michigan. That rule authorizes the Court to levy punishments other than suspension or disbarment on a practicing attorney whose conduct has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct… or who has engaged in conduct considered to be “unbecoming of a member of the bar of this court.”

The Rule also authorizes the Court to refer counsel to the Chief Judge of the District for disbarment or suspension proceedings. Additionally, the Rule authorizes the Court to refer counsel to the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board and the disciplinary authorities of counsels’ home jurisdictions for purposes of disciplinary proceedings.

In support of their claims of Michigan’s election fraud, defendants cite language from the transcript of President Trump’s infamous phone call to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State. According to a Washington Post transcript of the phone call cited in the motion, the President said, “I mean, we have other states that I believe will be flipping to us very shortly. And this is something that —you know, as an example, I think it in Detroit…we had, I think it was, 139 percent of the people voted. That’s not too good.”

The motion said, “Trump trotted out the same hoary canards as the Plaintiffs falsely argue to this Court.”

When asked to react to the new Rule 11 violation which was filed on December 15, Powell told the news website Law and Crime that “We are clearly over the target.” Similarly, Wood posted a response to the notion on Twitter, stating, “When you get falsely accused by the likes of …The Hillary Clinton Firm in a propaganda rag like Law & Crime, you smile because you know you are over the target & the enemy is running scared!” He called the motion “nonsense” in another interview.

Previously, Wood had tweeted, “Fraud is rampant in all state elections. If U.S. Supreme Court does not have courage to act, I believe our President @realDonaldTrump has the courage. (Dec. 14, 2020). We The People must now launch massive campaign to prevent our state electors from EVER casting vote in Electoral College for Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. Unless you want them to vote for Communism. In that event, get out of our country & go enjoy your life in Communist China.”

The motion goes into detail about many other frivolous and dangerous claims by Powell, Lin and some additional defendants. It concludes, “It is only by responding with the harshest possible discipline that these attorneys and those who would follow in their footsteps will learn to respect the integrity of the court system.”