From the opinion:
_____________
Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. But attorneys cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same. And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order.
Here’s why. America’s civil litigation system affords individuals the privilege to file a lawsuit to allege a violation of law. Individuals, however, must litigate within the established parameters for filing a claim. Such parameters are set forth in statutes, rules of civil procedure, local court rules, and professional rules of responsibility and ethics. Every attorney who files a claim on behalf of a client is charged with the obligation to know these statutes and rules, as well as the law allegedly violated.
***
This matter comes before the Court upon allegations that Plaintiffs’ counsel did none of these things. To be clear, for the purpose of the pending sanctions motions, the Court is neither being asked to decide nor has it decided whether there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election in the State of Michigan.1
***
On December 7, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Plaintiffs’ motion and thereby declining to grant Plaintiffs the relief they wanted, which the Court noted was “stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach” as it sought to “disenfranchise the votes of the more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who . . . participat[ed] in the 2020 General Election.” (ECF No. 62 at Pg ID 3296.) The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was subject to dismissal based on any one of several legal theories: (i) their claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; (ii) their claims were barred under the doctrine of laches; (iii) they lacked standing; (iv) their claims were moot; and (v) abstention was appropriate under the doctrine set forth in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). (Id. at Pg ID 3301-24.) But the Court also concluded that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. (Id. at Pg ID 3324-28.)
____________
Ignoring the informal contraction usage coupled with an incomplete sentence included in a legal document ("here's why") and otherwise very poorly written opinion, the Court reach a conclusion about the merits before anyone had an opportunity to do any discovery whatsoever, and the very method of proving this case is through the discovery process.
The decision was made before the evidence could have been provided and the Court was not even remotely interested in allowing time for such discovery.
Lemme guess. The judge was appointed by Obama?
