Pardon Me, I Need To Follow A Little Of This

Judge now asking what authority the Plaintiffs had that the judge could grant any of that relief.

Plaintiffs' lawyers' lawyer: The constitution and Bush v. Gore. (This is a bad argument)

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

(From earlier in the day; but it's nice to have an historical record).  Yes, it is a bad argument, for many reasons. However, as a predicate for this, it's not bad:

This, btw, is an excellent argument in opposition to a sanctions motion: no, we don't have anything exactly on point, but we had a basis for a good faith belief we could do this

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

That's the dirty little problem with sanctions. Think of it as the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Without the ability to move the law, no Brown v. Board; no repeal of Dred Scott; no Gideon or Miranda; you get the idea. But can you always blow that smokescreen?

State's lawyer is responding directly to that: They ignored the procedures for challenging an election and instead went for a collateral attack. Were using the court to message politically

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

In a word: no.

"We want to bring post-election process claims based on things we could have challenged pre-election, and fraud claims separate from the p

That's absolutely false, btw. Procedure claims are ripe *only* before an election.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

ost-election challenge process" is frivolous on its face

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Yeah, the courts aren't as dumb as the legal procedure and method of reasoning might make them seem. Besides, the lawyers in trouble want to have it both ways:

That's absolutely false, btw. Procedure claims are ripe *only* before an election.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

The issue in a sanctions hearing really does come down to this:

And the procedure claims were stale by the time they filed.

"We had shorter time and did better work. What they filed was an embarrassment to the legal profession"

YEP

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

This is not how you argue against sanctions for you clients who are lawyers:

Judge: So why didn't they dismiss it as moot?
Campbell: Because they are lawyers, they have to zealously advocate. And a Wisconsin judge said it's 12/14. So 12/14 was the deadline date. Then on 12/14, multiple electors voted, including our plaintiffs

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Judge: Defense counsel?
Meingast: I don't even know what to say. They TOLD SCOTUS that this would be moot as of 12/14. The fact that some of these plaintiffs mock-voted outside the capital doesn't change that, nothing this court could do.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

And first rule of holes:

Judge: Defense counsel?
Meingast: I don't even know what to say. They TOLD SCOTUS that this would be moot as of 12/14. The fact that some of these plaintiffs mock-voted outside the capital doesn't change that, nothing this court could do.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

I've been in hearings where I knew I was losing the argument. I never resorted to insulting the judge.

Fink: We moved to dismiss not because we wanted fees, but because the Republic was under attack. After we filed that motion and they saw all the grounds, they didn't dismiss. And they didn't dismiss after January 6 when all the electors were counted.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

I can't follow the thread of the argument from this (and nothing I've excluded is explanatory of how they got to this point), but I include to indicate what must be the absolute madness of the arguments for the lawyers. This isn't even coherent anymore. Then again I think Woods and Powell both need to be disbarred and then remanded for psychiatric counseling, and allowed nothing sharper than a rubber ball. Seriously.

And on Feb 4, Powell on Telegram says "we haven't lost every case, our Michigan case is still scheduled for conference"

Holy shit

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Well, that helps. Totally incoherent was their argument all along.

Judge: Now I'm going to ask questions in order to determine whether I should sanction you under Rule 11 or 1927

Want to know about your investigation and litigation conduct. pic.twitter.com/uTfXAKOeS2

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

🎶"Turn out the liiiights, the party's over!"🎶

available as trial counsel on anything Sid needed me for. I didn't apply for Pro Hac.

Judge: You gave your permission

Wood: I didn't know it would be included, I told her I'd help her at need.

Judge: Did you read it before it was filed?

Wood: No. Found out after

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Like I sang:

In Delaware, Mr. Wood EXPLICITLY represented to the Delaware court that he was involved in the case in Michigan. He says he's involved when it benefits him.

We gave them Rule 11 notice. He didn't withdraw

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

A Pro-Tip: NEVER piss off the judge's court reporter.

The Court reporter is now yelling at counsel to stop interrupting.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

And to return to the issues of any sanction hearing, these things do not constitute "reasonable arguments for extending the law:"

He thinks if you go to FL for the winter you're a fraudulent voter. That's not a thing.

"I'm not a statistician but I play one in court. I know how to look at two numbers and see if they match." He's got statistics that are internally inconsistent

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Now, fun with evidence!

Judge: This stuff was crazy. Attempted correction was not good enough. Should an attorney be sanctioned for the failure to sufficiently correct it

Campbell: Only if the attorney has actual knowledge. No evidence the lawyers had the knowledge. Nobody had proof it was in error

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Haller tries to interrupt and gets bounced.

Fink: These lies were put out into the world, adopted and believed so that in the infamous 1/2 phone conversation with Raffensperger, Trump explicitly referenced that 139% voting statistic. That's the consequences.

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

Fink: I'm not citing an internet source. I said 30 seconds on the internet gets you to the public record, which is not hearsay. It was always available

Judge: And I'll point out it was available on November 19 pic.twitter.com/RqS3STJizV

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021

That went well.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught because, you know, we can see where this is going.

Klown: You're hearing a lot of factual representations, please check the record carefully

Judge: I don't need that caution from YOU pic.twitter.com/DqBQhKObyT

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) July 12, 2021