Calling the case before the court a “historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” a federal judge in Michigan sanctioned three of ex-President Trump’s lawyers and four additional of-counsel attorneys for their attempts at “deceiving a federal court and the American people.”

In a blistering 110-page opinion, the Hon. Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that sanctions are in order when an attorney “disseminates allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere.” She emphasized that attorneys “cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process” in this manner.

She began her August 25 opinion by framing the question before the court as “whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys engaged in abusive and sanctionable litigation practices.” She outlined the obligations of all attorneys to use due diligence before they present allegations as truth, to advance only plausible claims, and to proceed with good faith. She then said that none of these responsibilities were met and concluded that the short answer to the question before the court “is yes.”

Parker’s opinion is the most recent example of judicial outrage and disgust at Trump attorneys who are putting forth claims of election fraud that are not backed by law, evidence, or facts. Using italics, she emphasized, “And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.”

Such tactics may be permissible in the media, she said, but are “neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law.” Parker emphasized that attorneys take “an oath to uphold and honor our legal system,” then summarized that “Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.” Throughout her opinion, she stressed that the Plaintiffs’ baseless claims were barred by the doctrines of mootness (having no undecided issue), laches (causing unreasonable delays), and standing (lack of suffering an injury).

Parker summarized the procedural history of the Michigan case that led to the situation before the court. She restated the 150,000-vote margin that President Biden received in last November’s presidential election. And, although Michigan state law has procedures for challenging vote counts, she said Plaintiffs ignored them and filed a lawsuit against Governor Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials instead. Plaintiffs are listed as Sidney Powell, Scott Hagerstrom, and Gregory J. Rohl, and of- counsel attorneys Emily P. Newman, Julia Z. Haller, L. Lin Wood, and Howard Kleinhendler.

Plaintiffs asked the court to decertify Michigan’s election results and substitute “certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the election.” To support their spurious claim, they asserted violations of the Michigan Election code and claimed there was a “scheme…to fraudulently and illegally manipulate the vote court…” They said they had affidavits by eyewitnesses and expert witnesses who identified “statistical anomalies and mathematical impossibilities.” They attached hundreds of pages of questionable and ultimately discredited exhibits to support their discredited claims.

The judge described the judicial journey of her ruling, citing motions by both sides and Plaintiffs’ futile attempt to obtain certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, even after they acknowledged that the issues in the case were now moot. Michigan’s defendants, including the state’s Governor and Secretary of State and the City of Detroit, repeatedly asked for sanctions due to Plaintiff’s “meritless” and “frivolous claims” that several courts had already dismissed.

Parker then discussed applicable law, beginning with precedents that defined the proper use of sanctions. “The purpose of sanctions,” she quoted, is “to deter dilatory litigation practices and to punish aggressive tactics that far exceed zealous advocacy.” She noted that bad faith is not necessary, and that “a court need only determine that an attorney reasonably should know that a claim pursued is frivolous.” She also said that “an ‘empty-head’ but ‘pure-heart’ does not justify lodging patently unsupported factual assertions.” Many specific examples of bad faith are presented throughout the judge’s opinion.

Plaintiffs tried a few arguments to avoid sanctions. First, they said sanctions cannot be given when attorneys only use type rather than personal signatures to sign court documents, as was the case here. The court said this was a “frivolous” argument in this “age of electronic filing.” Plaintiff L. Lin Wood tried to avoid sanctions by saying he had no recollection of ever giving permission for his name to be used in this suit. The court said Wood’s claims were not credible because he had adequate notice of the case, which he often referred to in his social media postings.

Other Plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to be dismissed due to their limited participation in the case. Again, Parker said these arguments “did not fly” and found that all attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to avoid sanctions were denied because they “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in this case and their arguments to the contrary are unavailing.”

She also wrote that it is “not lost upon the court that the same claims and requested relief…were disposed of… by judges” in Michigan who noted “this suit has been driven by partisan political posturing, entirely disconnected from the law” and “is the dangerous product of an online feedback loop, with these attorneys citing ‘legal precedent” derived not from a serious analysis of case law, but from the rantings of conspiracy theorists sharing amateur analysis and legal fantasy in their social media echo chambers.”

Parker wrote, “It is not lost upon the court that the same claims… were disposed of, for many of the same reasons…by judges in several other “battleground” jurisdictions where Plaintiffs’’ counsel sought to overturn the election results. The fact that no federal district court considering the issues at bar has found them worthy of moving forward supports the conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous.”

She said that no evidentiary hearing was needed to conclude as she did since all purported evidence and affidavits were “conjecture, speculation and guesswork” and for which all factual claims lacked evidentiary support. In addition, she commented that nothing Plaintiffs presented actually showed fraud. For example, several fraud claims were simply “borrowed” from other lawsuits and thus lack credibility due to a lack of independent evaluation. Evidence gathered from social media prompted Parker to say, “Even the most basic internet inquiry would have alerted Plaintiffs’ counsel to the wildly inaccurate assertions in (one) affidavit.”

Parker concludes her lengthy admonishment by emphasizing the bad faith and improper purpose of the frivolous lawsuit and by the Plaintiffs’ failure to acknowledge that it was a moot action that “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.” Then she turned to sanctions, stating, “This lawsuit should never have been filed. The State Defendants and the Intervenor-Defendants should never have had to defend it. If Plaintiffs’ attorneys are not ordered to reimburse the State Defendants and the City for the reasonable fees and costs incurred to defend this action, counsel will not be deterred from

continuing to abuse the judicial system to publicize their narrative.”

Finally, she stated a case for further action and said the attorneys’ actions “warrant a referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for every state bar and federal court in which each attorney is admitted.”