Haller and Newman were former Trump officials, serving in Housing and Urban Development and Homeland Security, respectively. Kleinhendler has taken up multiple causes of the political right after the election, which were ripped apart by federal judges.
[...]
“Plaintiffs’ lawyers brazenly assert that they ‘would file the same complaints again,'” her ruling notes. “They make this assertion even after witnessing the events of January 6 and the dangers posed by narratives like the one counsel crafted here. An attorney who willingly continues to assert claims doomed to fail, and which have incited violence before, must be deemed to be acting with an improper motive.”sFull of indignation and spanning 110 pages, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker‘s ruling reads like a treatise on the judiciary’s role in protecting the democratic process.
[...]
Parker’s pronouncement was similarly unequivocal that “this case was never about fraud,” a phrase she emphasized in italics.
“[I]t was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so,” she added, in her own emphasis.
“While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced, such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law,” she added in her ruling. “And while we as a country pride ourselves on the freedoms embodied within the First Amendment, it is well-established that an attorney’s freedom of speech is circumscribed upon ‘entering’ the courtroom.”
[...]
“Once it appeared that their preferred political candidate’s grasp on the presidency was slipping away, Plaintiffs’ counsel helped mold the predetermined narrative about election fraud by lodging this federal lawsuit based on evidence that they actively refused to investigate or question with the requisite level of professional skepticism—and this refusal was to ensure that the evidence conformed with the predetermined narrative (a narrative that has had dangerous and violent consequences),” her ruling states. “Plaintiffs’ counsel’s politically motivated accusations, allegations, and gamesmanship may be protected by the First Amendment when posted on Twitter, shared on Telegram, or repeated on television. The nation’s courts, however, are reserved for hearing legitimate causes of action.”
[...]
“Indeed, attorneys take an oath to uphold and honor our legal system,” Parker wrote. “The sanctity of both the courtroom and the litigation process are preserved only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.”
[...]
Parker also ordered that the attorneys pay [legal] fees.
Law and Crime
No comments:
Post a Comment