rpenner1886 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (95)
-
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
-
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2021 @ 10:26pmRe: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
Unrelated to the above, but perhaps a post hoc justification for lawyers reading the news, is that Sidney Powell claims two deaths were murders to cover up election fraud. Based on less than nothing.
-
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2021 @ 10:20pmRe: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
The Detroit News covered the above. It didn't have any snark or opinion on the objection, but did point out that the author is lawyer for only Sidney Powell, Julia Haller, Brandon Johnson, Scott Hagerstrom, Howard Kleinhendler, and Gregory Rohl. L. Lin Wood, Emily Newman, and Stefanie Lynn Junttila may yet file something.
-
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2021 @ 10:07pmOBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
On September 8, in an attachment to Doc 174 the lawyers for the City of Detroit list charges which at a discounted rate total to $182,192. From paragraph 9:
The total hourly charges, at the City's negotiated and then discounted rates, for defending King v Whitmer at the trial court level are $39,999. The total hourly charges related to appellate matters pertaining to King v Whitmer are $26,077. The total hourly charges in King v. Whitmer pertaining to the sanctions motions are $116,116.
Today, two weeks later, the crowd of Sidney Powell and others object in Doc 175 make a reasonable sounding argument that they should not have to pay the $26,077.50 in costs and fees for the appeal -- not in proceedings at this District Court, at least. They also make the unreasonable case that the City of Detroit's bill should not exceed that of the State of Michigan defendants (whose lawyers are public servants). But even their reasonable side has problems. Where did the $0.50 come from? Presumably they took the base rates of $325, $225 and $75 and reduced them by 10% to $292.50, $202.50 and $67.50 and then multiplied those reduced rates by the hours worked and totaled. But if that is so, it doesn't follow that they are entitled to that last $0.50 if the judge goes strictly by paragraph 9. On the unreasonable side, they claim that:Yet the City spent over five times the amount expended by the State Defendants to achieve the same outcomes. ... [The City of Detroit] — especially as in intervenor— should be awarded no more than is awarded the state.
No case law cited.A reduction is also appropriate because the City misused block billing. There is no prohibition against block billing per se. [citation omitted] But a reduction may be appropriate when block billing makes it difficult to determine whether the time spent on various tasks was reasonable.
But the whole point of these sanctions is that the entire litigation was unreasonable due to actions of the Plaintiffs' lawyers. Moreover, in the cases cited, it was the Court's suspicion of hidden unreasonableness that led to a reduction of 5-10% for block billing. So they need more than to just point out the lawyers spent entire 8 and 11 hour days puzzling over this case.A reduction is also appropriate because multiple entries are duplicative. [citation omitted] For example:
Totally reasonable and as the 7 (or so) lawyers on the plaintiff side did not read the complaint and amended complaint with the scrutiny required by their Rule 11 duty, it follows that they are ill equipped to determine how many man-hours are needed to slog through those hundreds of pages.- Four attorneys ... all billed for reviewing the complaint. ECF No. 174-1 ...
- Three attorneys ... billed for reading the amended complaint. ECF No. 174-1 ...
...
Legal billing practices are foreign to me, but the concept of collaboration is not. Finally, they seem to hit upon a small, certain win only to immediately undermine it:- On July 28, 2021, one attorney spent 5.25 hours on tasks including “review and revision of draft Supplemental Brief” while another attorney spent 4 hours on tasks including reviewing and revising the same brief. ...
- On August 2, 2021, two attorneys billed for drafting the same brief. ...
Some entries are simply unreasonable. For example:
If your opponent is contaminating the potential jury pool with their PR efforts, does not one have a professional responsibility to get ahead of Dame Rumor? OK, so perhaps there is no jury pool for a case before a Magistrate Judge, but it would be inconvenient if the anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) saber-rattling caused unnecessary grief to the City of Detroit.- The City asks the Court to award fees for its public-relations efforts: ...
- It also asks the Court to award fees for time spent reading the news: ...
...
Their own exhibit makes it clear it is 2 items, probably each billed at the minimum increment of 1/4 hour.- The City seeks compensation for a half hour it supposedly spent reading a motion with three substantive pages (in 14-point font) and a text- only order:
The vast majority of the City’s fees—almost two-thirds, excluding appellate fees—arose from its quest for sanctions rather than its opposition to the offensive pleadings. The lopsided nature of the City’s fees is further support for a reduction to no more than requested by the State.
Sadly, I cannot find this reasonable either, because Plaintiffs' lawyers were wrong in so many, many ways. Naturally, taking time out to describe and argue every breach of duty is going to take some time, some research and some real money.Finally, a reduction is appropriate because the City billed in quarter-hour increments rather than tenths of an hour. Using quarter-hour increments is not prohibited.
Once again, they are not the arbiters of what is reasonable. The City of Detroit contracted for these services and is on the hook for these charges which can only be called unreasonable in the same breath one blames the Plaintiff's attorneys for these expenses. -
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2021 @ 03:33pmRe: Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Part of the reason sanctions were justified is that the claims in the lawsuit could be easily debunked had any of the lawyers had the least bit of intellectual curiosity or attentiveness to their duty to reasonably investigate the claims prior to filing. How easy, you ask? according to the New York Times even one day would have been enough, even if you were Trump partisans:
According to emails contained in the documents, Zach Parkinson, then the [Trump] campaign’s deputy director of communications, reached out to subordinates on Nov. 13 asking them to “substantiate or debunk” several matters concerning Dominion. The next day, the emails show, Mr. Parkinson received a copy of a memo cobbled together by his staff from what largely appear to be news articles and public fact-checking services.
And the New York Times has the 14 page memo. -
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2021 @ 03:32pmRe: Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
Part of the reason sanctions were justified is that the claims in the lawsuit could be easily debunked had any of the lawyers had the least bit of intellectual curiosity or attentiveness to their duty to reasonably investigate the claims prior to filing. How easy, you ask? according to the New York Times even one day would have been enough, even if you were Trump partisans:
According to emails contained in the documents, Zach Parkinson, then the [Trump] campaign’s deputy director of communications, reached out to subordinates on Nov. 13 asking them to “substantiate or debunk” several matters concerning Dominion. The next day, the emails show, Mr. Parkinson received a copy of a memo cobbled together by his staff from what largely appear to be news articles and public fact-checking services.
And the New York Times has the 14 page memo. -
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2021 @ 10:10amRe: Re: Farm Case - Enter the Volokh
Above the Law: "Nunes Defamation Suit Sheds Redaction Bars, Is Somehow Even Grosser Than Expected" has a summary of what was revealed:
The employee appeared without the subpoenaed identification papers, having only learned about the deposition when he showed up for work that morning. Hearst’s lawyers allege that they presented the employee with multiple documents drawing his immigration status into question, including mismatched signatures, papers he purported to have filled out himself although he cannot read or write English, one form which described him as a US citizen, and another which described him as a permanent resident under a program which cuts off eligibility three years before the witness was even born. The lawyer hired by NuStar to represent the workers advised his client to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, at which point Biss lost his shit and demanded to go off the record. Two hours later, the witness’s attorney had been fired, and Biss, who claims not to represent the NuStar workers, was insisting that none of the six would take the Fifth. Hearst’s lawyers refused to depose an unrepresented witness who might incriminate himself with truthful testimony, and the proceeding was adjourned sine die.
-
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2021 @ 02:27pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Drama continues...
Gary Fielder missed the Friday triply-extended deadline, but managed to file his opening appellant brief on Saturday in both the District and Circuit courts (along with a motion for extension of time). It looks like his main beef is Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife which is a 1992 Supreme Court decision which routinely denies standing to people claiming injury which is common to everyone. The first nonsense argument I spotted: (p. 5):
every registered voter has one shared right to vote for President and Vice-President. Any persons engaged in state action that substantially burdens that right is liable under the [Civil Rights] Act. Thus, a registered voter in one State has the right to sue persons for acts concerning a Presidential election committed in another State.
The case cited to support this argument is Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) which does on page 460 U. S. 795 explain that the electoral college means some votes may not have equal strength in deciding the president:For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation. Moreover, the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.
but that doesn't mean that the right to vote is impacted. But Importantly, Fielder cites page 788 which leaves it as a mystery to me just what citation he means. Fielder continues:The district court may be limited by want of personal jurisdiction over a defendant, but if the voter chooses to travel to the district in which the perpetrator may be found, jurisdiction is satisfied.
Wrong. Not only does that not connect with any of the containing paragraph, but a post-election cross-country drive is not going to get a Maryland voter personal jurisdiction over an Ohio election official. And certainly not in a Colorado court. And when it comes down to pleading Injury in fact (pp. 25-30), at no point does Fielder make a case. There is nothing like a chain of causation or a specification of how one state's actors burdens the right to vote of people in another state. Just a wallpaper of case law going nowhere and a promise that “In their complaints, the Plaintiffs outlined with specificity how the Defendants substantially burdened their respective right to vote in the 2020 Presidential election.” The section ends with the paragraph:As described by the Plaintiffs in their complaints, the conduct of the Defendants had a direct impact on the result of the 2020 Presidential election, which likely does not reflect the actual will of the American people.
A footnote is attached. Does the footnote explain that Donald Trump lost the popular election in 2016 and in 2020? No, of course not.The President of the United States is ultimately chosen by the Electors of each State. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. These facts, however, are unprecedented in the history of the United States. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs take no position, and have never made any requests regarding the legitimacy of the Presidential election. The Plaintiffs are powerless, in that regard. Nonetheless, the damages suffered by the Defendants are the foreseeable result of the Defendants’ conduct. The power of persons like Zuckerberg and Chan, Facebook and Dominion to affect the outcome of any election is tremendous and fearsome. To deny it, is to deny reality.
That is some crazy-pants, preaching-to-the-choir writing. It really highlights Fielder's failure to serve the initial complaint on Zuckerberg and Chan. It seems pretty salacious to write this when the essential matter of stating how plaintiffs' right to vote was burdened goes unstated. It also looks like an attack on the Constitution's electoral college as undemocratic. True, but not really a winning point in court. However, the electoral college scheme is precisely that which destroys the claims built on a right to vote. Each state is responsible for its own procedures on how to choose electors and how much freedom those electors have to vote. Variance in state-to-state voting schemes, funding, standards and procedures is fairly mandated by the Constitution. Only if one is preaching to the choir would such a weak pleading of particularized injuries apply. -
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2021 @ 06:49pmRe: Re: Farm Case - Enter the Volokh
As expected, at The Volokh Conspiracry there is a new article "Certain Documents Unsealed in Nunes v. Lizza" referring to the farm case. The article is pretty bare in that it primarily links to redacted and less redacted copies of the four filings above and has a short comment on the process of getting them largely unredacted. It is suggested that more exposition may come next week.
-
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2021 @ 06:41pmRe: Re: Re: Re: The Drama continues...
The Plaintiffs' counsel Gary Fielder has just now noticed that the date he requested his appeal opening brief be extended to (10th circuit, 21-1161) is the same day that he asked his rule 59 motion to modifiy judgment be extended do and asks (and gets) an extension of time for the later. Quoth the Judge:
Any motion brought pursuant to Rule 59 shall be filed on or before September 28, 2021. No further extensions will be granted.
So how is that appeal going?
(even more emphasis in original)- 2021-04-30 Civil appeal docketed.
- 2021-05-14 Record complete, Opening brief originally due 2021-06-23
- 2021-06-23 Motion to extend time to 2021-07-28
- 2021-07-20 Motion to extend time to 2021-09-02
- 2021-08-30 Motion to extend time to 2021-09-17
-
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2021 @ 06:19pmRe: Farm Case - Enter the Volokh
Eugene Volokh got four documents partially unredacted, concerned the exchange of motions about a desire to compel an employee/witness to provide documents that should have been brought to the deposition but where the witness seemed unprepared. It was also notably about Steven Biss's behavior carving out 2 hours to jaw with a witness' lawyer on whether the the witness really wanted to take the fifth at a deposition. From Doc 119, the judge wrote:
Mr. Biss makes bald assurances that the employees want to answer all questions and not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Nevertheless, Mr. Biss’s behavior—coupled with the facts that (a) the privilege was raised, (b) the privilege was perhaps withdrawn after a lengthy sidebar, and (c) Mr. Allen was fired—gives me little confidence that F.S.D. could make a knowing waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights under these circumstances.
but declined to order attorneys more than to read up on how Van Stelton v. Van Stelton prohibits telling witnesses to shut up without also filing for a protective order. Later in 122 the judge reconsiders and suggests that six employees may very well need criminal defense attorneys assigned. So what did Volokh get from the exchange of motion papers? Well the unredacted (less redacted) reply document 111 lays out some assertions of suspicious fact patterns involving I-9, SSN records that don't match and Biss’s behavior. Nunes v. Lizza (5:20-cv-04003) District Court, N.D. Iowa-
Motion to compel by defendants 103 2021-05-21
Specifically, when the first employee’s independent counsel advised his client to assert his Fifth Amendment right in response to questioning about the Form I-9 he completed to gain employment at NuStar’s farm, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Biss, suddenly took the deposition off the record. Then, two hours of discussions took place between and among Mr. Biss, the witness’s independent counsel, and one or both of the Nunes plaintiffs. At the conclusion of those conversations, the parties went back on the record. Defendants’ counsel asked the first employee witness if he understood his lawyer’s advice, and if he was going to follow it and assert his Fifth Amendment right. Before the witness could answer, Mr. Biss responded, “No, he’s not going to follow it.” The independent counsel then stated that he had been fired, and that his services would not be offered to the other NuStar employees, either.
-
Argument to compel 103-1 2021-05-21
Before, during, and after the first employee deposition, Mr. Biss represented, consistent with the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, that there are no problems with the employees’ documentation or their immigration status, and that they would not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Boyer Decl., Ex. F at 74:1-20; id., Ex. H at 20:21-23:15; id., Ex. I. That Mr. Biss would make these representations—despite apparently never meeting with these witnesses, not being their lawyer, and notwithstanding an avalanche of indicia that the workers are here illegally—raises questions about his and his clients’ efforts to mold or restrain the testimony of these witnesses.
-
Response 107 2021-06-01
- The NuStar employees did nothing wrong and will not assert the Fifth Amendment or refuse to answer any questions. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the NuStar employees have not received a “clear signal from their employer as to what answers to provide and not provide”. This is a categorically false statement as is Defendants’ inflammatory speculation that any employee will “lie under oath, allowing untruthful testimony to be entered into the record”.
- Plaintiffs and their counsel did not cause the “independent counsel” to be fired by [the employee-witness FSD]. [FSD] fired the lawyer himself. Plaintiffs were not at the deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel appeared remotely, and never spoke with the witness.
- Reply 111 2021-06-04
Setting aside its bluster, irrelevant and inaccurate attacks on Mr. Lizza’s reporting, and baseless accusations of misconduct by Defendants and their representatives, Plaintiffs’ Resistance does not dispute the alarming facts that support granting the relief Defendants seek.
-
Motion to compel by defendants 103 2021-05-21
-
On the post: Federal Court Blocks Enforcement Of Florida's New Anti-Riot Law
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2021 @ 07:15pmDeSantis, Governor and Florida Man (redux)
See also From Above the Law: Court Dropkicks FL Law That Redefined Protest As Illegal Riot
Gov. DeSantis produced some extremely gross racism, including evidence that unrelated Black civil rights groups in other parts of the state had organized marches.
“Though it is true the event flyers include images of Black men and women apparently engaged in peaceful protest, Plaintiffs are not before this Court representing all Black men and women in the State of Florida,” the court noted acidly.
DeSantis also included this flier for a Juneteenth celebration of “Black Joy” as proof that the defendants felt free to express their opposition to the government. -
On the post: 8th Circuit's Bizarre Ruling In Devin Nunes' SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Ryan Lizza
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2021 @ 10:14amAha. But back in the other defamation case, the one purportedly brought by the Nunes Family who farms, but is still repressented by Steven Biss and about the true party at interest motivating the lawsuit is a question that no one is answering just yet, we have this Motion referring to the decision in the Eight Circuit:
On September 15, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in the appeal filed by Devin G. Nunes in Case 5:19-cv-4064-CJW-MAR. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. A copy of the Court of Appeals’ decision is attached.
Significantly, the Court of Appeals held that Devin Nunes’ complaint states a plausible claim for defamation by implication. The Court, p. 6, found as follows:- “Nunes contends that his complaint states a plausible claim for defamation by implication. He argues that the article implies the existence of a ‘politically explosive secret’ that he ‘conspired with others’ to hide the farm’s use of undocumented labor. He alleges that the implication is false because he was not involved in the farm’s operations, and ‘had no knowledge of who the dairy farm hired. The district court concluded that ‘no reasonable reader’ could draw that implication from the article. We respectfully disagree.”
Plaintiffs made the exact same claim of defamation by implication in this case, and the District Court dismissed that claim for the exact same reasons as it dismissed Devin Nunes’ claim. See ECF No. 50 (Memorandum Opinion and Order), pp. 28-32.
In light of the Court of Appeals’ reversal, we intend to move the Court in this case for leave to file an amended complaint re-asserting the claim of defamation by implication.
The Court of Appeals’ decision directly impacts the administration of this case. Plaintiffs have a right – indirectly affirmed by the Court of Appeals – to pursue a claim of defamation by implication. In light of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, we request that the summary judgment schedule be suspended and the trial date continued so that Plaintiffs can pursue full justice.Nunes v. Lizza (5:20-cv-04003) District Court, N.D. Iowa Doc 162 2021-09-15
It doesn't follow (to me) that a defamation claim brought by one party in one suit being found to have merit gives rise to the proposition the claim in another suit also has merit unless the parties are identical in which case we have another problem....
-
On the post: Florida Presents Its Laughable Appeal For Its Unconstitutional Social Media Content Moderation Law
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2021 @ 03:25pmDeSantis, Governor and Florida Man
On Thursday, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Florida's new definition of riot as unconstitutionally vague and rejected the Governor's argument that it simply codified the common law definition of riot. Actual riots are illegal, but peacefully holding a sign with a group of like-minded fellows while the governor or sheriff thinks someone near you might turn violent cannot be a crime.
From Above the Law: Court Dropkicks FL Law That Redefined Protest As Illegal Riot
Gov. DeSantis produced some extremely gross racism, including evidence that unrelated Black civil rights groups in other parts of the state had organized marches.
“Though it is true the event flyers include images of Black men and women apparently engaged in peaceful protest, Plaintiffs are not before this Court representing all Black men and women in the State of Florida,” the court noted acidly.
DeSantis also included this flier for a Juneteenth celebration of “Black Joy” as proof that the defendants felt free to express their opposition to the government.Confusing a picnic with a protest march with a riot is a good way to show your understanding of the 1st Amendment is unconstitutionally vague.
See also the judgment in Doc 137 of Dream Defenders v. DeSantis (4:21-cv-00191), District Court, N.D. Florida.
-
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2021 @ 10:57amRe: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS
From Above the Law: "Kraken Bill Comes Due And It’s A Remarkably Reasonable $200K"
That Detroit’s firm walked away only asking for $180K is a boon for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and the rest of team Kraken.
That's based on Doc 173 where the State of Michigan civil servants estimate costs as $21,964.75 and the City of Detroit's outside firm estimates a discounted $182,192 in Doc 174. Detroit got a 10% discount because the high volume of election litigation and the outside firm of Fink Bressack helpfully points out that over 60% of their costs were due to their work on the sanctions. Had Powell gotten this to the Discovery phase, the legal fees would have skyrocketed. -
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2021 @ 05:58amRe: Re: Re: The Drama continues...
As of September 3, Docs 150-152 detail the current asks by Dominion ($78,944.00), Facebook ($50,000) and CTCL ($64,012.24), but this time they aren't asking Plaintiffs’ counsel, Walker and Fielder, but the judge. Although the amounts changed this is a net bill of over $6000 more than the initially reported negotiating positions. Dominion writes:
BHFS spent a total of 242.3 hours (1) preparing and arguing Dominion’s Motion to Dismiss and (2) preparing and arguing Dominion’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Facebook writes:
...
Because some of these [actual] hourly rates, though reasonable, are above the rates included in the resource referenced by the Court in its sanctions order—the Colorado Bar Association’s Economics of Law Practice Survey—Dominion has reduced most of the rates above to reach its lodestar calculation of $78,944.00. ... This equates to a reduction of nearly $20,000.00.Facebook seeks an award of $50,000 for reasonable legal fees for 166.8 hours of work by its attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (“Gibson Dunn”) in connection with investigating, researching, drafting, and arguing its Motion to Dismiss and opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend. To arrive at this request, Facebook took the following steps:
Center For Tech And Civic Life writes in footnotes:- Facebook first reduced the total hours spent on legal work related to these two motions through the exercise of “billing judgment” by Gibson Dunn
- Facebook next reduced the hourly rates Gibson Dunn, which is a national law firm, charges, in order to align with the rates in the 2017 Colorado Bar Association survey cited in the Court’s Order
- Facebook finally subtracted nearly $10,000 more from the $59,760 resulting from a straightforward multiplication of these reduced hours and reduced rates to reach the final requested amount of $50,000
Nevertheless, in an effort to compromise, CTCL’s counsel not only based their proposed fees on the median rates applicable in the Colorado market, cf. id. (“$350.00 per hour is on the high side of billing rates for attorneys in Colorado”), but also offered to stipulate to a fee award of $37,500 to avoid further litigation and expense. Plaintiffs’ counsel ignored and then flatly rejected that offer. ECF 146, 147. ... [Plaintiffs' counsel] also rejected CTCL’s proposal out of hand and said they would agree only to a $10,000 award that preserved their rights to continue litigating both in this Court and on appeal. See ECF 146. When CTCL attempted to negotiate further, Plaintiffs’ counsel rebuffed them outright.
CTCL in the main writes:As set forth in CTCL’s billing records—attached as Exhibit 8 to the Affidavit of Joshua Matz (“Matz Aff.”)—CTCL spent 313.4 hours of attorney and paralegal time on the Relevant Motions. Matz Aff. ¶ 13. That includes time dedicated to analyzing the filings by Plaintiffs’ counsel, drafting CTCL’s briefs (ECF 41, 62, 81), and preparing for and participating in argument. Consistent with the Court’s sanctions order, CTCL multiplied its hours by the median prevailing market rates in Colorado to arrive at its lodestar figure. See ECF 136 at 68. After adding $1,082.24 for CTCL’s electronic research expenses, CTCL arrived at its requested award of $64,012.24.
Perhaps because they are the only of the three to adopt the median rate and perhaps had less need to justify their hourly rates, CTCL is the only one to tackle the issue of the fundraising behind the plaintiff's counsel:If Plaintiffs’ counsel object to CTCL’s requested fee award based on an alleged inability to pay, they should be expected to provide detailed information covering all these points, rather than a broad assertion of financial difficulty. In any event, Plaintiffs’ counsel have already confirmed that they fundraised approximately $95,000 from roughly 2,100 individuals during this litigation. ECF 133 at 22. That should be considered in assessing their ability to pay. CTCL respectfully submits that, notwithstanding any expenditures they have made against that figure, the global sanctions award should exceed the total amount they induced people to pay them.
That's the type of salty language you get when you try and sue a non-profit for $160,000,000,000.
(emphasis added) -
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2021 @ 10:22pmRe: Better Late than Never
Restless wrote:
the corrupt judge
Please elucidate and justify this adjective What do you know about Judge Nichols that we do not? Or are you using "corrupt" as a adjective which is meaningless in debate similar to "not in 100% lockstep with my personal, undocumented, ignorant prejudgement" ? Restless wrote:And what did I find?
That's what links are for. Restless wrote:She (and Lin) know what is right and just.
That's not what her side said in court in US DOMINION, INC. v. POWELL, MOTION to Dismiss by DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC, INC., SIDNEY POWELL, SIDNEY POWELL, P.C.. (Doc 22-2) (p. 33 (or 43 if you count the first page as 1)) :Additionally, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the statements, their context, and the availability of the facts on which the statements were based, it was clear to reasonable persons that Powell’s claims were her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions—or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds.
But not only does this "it's just my opinion I actually have video of the company founder engaging in conspiracy" claim not successfully turn a factual claim into a privileged opinion, in fact the evidence behind such claims is missing, leaving Powell defenseless.
(emphasis added)And if some corrupt and hateful AG wants to enlist her BBF judge to mount
Since you throw in a misogynic slight against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel it appears you are making fact-free claims. Nessel did not file papers in King v. Whitmer. Nor do you have evidence that Nessel and Judge Parker spoke on the matter. So worked up are you that you toss in the initialism BBF which has many meanings. Initially, I assumed you were having a racist Freudian slip and conflated BFF (best friends forever, which would make more sense if you used a useful meaning for "corrupt") with some other race-themed initialism, but possibly "Big Black Female" is established usage in racist or fetish circles. But... Judge Parker is not a big person: 2016 videoyou are applauding like tainted corrupt fools do.
This use of "tainted" is commonly seen in a white supremacist propaganda and rarely elsewhere. Please elucidate and justify this adjective. -
On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 10:26pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to change your wording
In some countries, resisting arrest is a criminal charge against an individual who has committed, depending on the jurisdiction, at least one of the following acts:
- fleeing a police officer while being arrested
- ...
Wikipedia: Resisting Arrest -
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 10:04pmRe: 'How was I to know throwing rocks straight up was painful?!'
I'm pretty sure that calling someone a conservative, "right-wing" or even a Trump supporter is protected opinion, not a factual assertion; while calling someone a Republican is likely not defamatory (esp. in Colorado). Yet Fielder styles himself as a Constitutional Lawyer at times.
-
On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits
rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 07:14amSo how about that appeal?
The April order dismissing the civil suit was issued in April. So O'Rourke, et al v. Dominion Voting Systems, et al is in the 10th Circuit as case 21-1161.
- 2021-04-30 Appeal process started
- 2021-05-13 Fielder lets the court know what the appeal is going to be about:
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE BELOW AND THE RESULT:
Eight Plaintiffs from five states filed a class action, civil rights case against two corporations, a non-profit organization and certain individuals, for their respective, unconstitutional conduct concerning the 2020 Presidential election. After the served defendants filed their motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with One-Hundred and Forty-Five Plaintiffs, with amended claims. Before resolution of the motions, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed certain defendants, leaving the two corporations and non-profit as the remaining defendants. Two individual defendants remained unserved, when the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and denied the motion to amend, as futile.
III. ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL:
The legal issues concern the standing of the Plaintiffs to bring the action. The standing of the Plaintiffs is connected to the status of the served Defendants as state actors, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court erred by finding that the Plaintiffs made only a generalized grievance, which failed to articulate a concrete and specific injury. The district erred by failing to recognize the injury suffered by the Plaintiffs, and other persons similarly situated. The district court erred by denying the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, and by finding that any attempt to amend the complaint would be futile.- 2021-06-23 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief. When was it due? Today. Did he know he was going to need more time earlier?
In fact, undersigned counsel was set for trial on this day of June 23, 2021, in a case involving a fatal traffic matter with multiple experts, but the case was dismissed—only after days of preparation
- 2021-07-20 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief (originally due 2021-07-28).
Absent extra-ordinary circumstances, this should be the last request for an extension of time.
- 2021-08-30 Fielder requests and gets more time to file a brief (originally due 2021-09-02).
The order sanctioning undersigned counsel was lengthy and additional time was required to review and understand the order. Additional attorney hours were spent determining how to proceed and the impact the order would have on this appeal.
Further, in light of the motions filed and the magistrate’s order, undersigned counsel has been slandered in multiple major newspapers, television and radio shows across the nation. Undersigned counsel has consistently been referred to as a “Trump lawyer,” GOP attorney,” “right-wing attorney,” and other misstatements. Undersigned counsel is not a Trump lawyer, or a GOP lawyer, and has no affiliation with either of those persons or entities. Undersigned counsel is not a “right-wing lawyer” and such public comments have put the safety and security of undersigned counsel and his family in danger.
Undersigned counsel’s email and voicemail were and continue to be used by individuals from across the country to disparage and threaten undersigned counsel. The Office of Regulatory Counsel of the State of Colorado wrote a letter to the press that undersigned counsel is under investigation for unethical behavior, in light of the magistrate’s order. Now that that Regulation Counsel has made a request for investigation a public matter which threatens undersigned counsel’s law license and, thus, ability to earn and living and support undersigned counsel’s family, this has also caused anxiety and emotional distress that has greatly affected undersigned counsel’s ability to appropriately concentrate, research and write the opening brief.- 2021-09-17 Opening brief is currently due Friday, September 17.
Re: OBJECTION: TOO MANY SANCTIONS
At the very end of the attachment to Doc 174, a spreadsheet totals the three categories and it from here the extra $0.50 came from. But if all the numbers are truncated to the whole dollar amount in the ask in paragraph 9, it follows that you can't ask the judge to reduce by that $0.50, already removed.