With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession - Whatever happened to traditional frivolity sanctions?

[JBG]

With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession (link) (no paywall, excerpt below)

President Trump broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration.
The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

This breathless headline and article would make you think we are talking about Tienanmen Square or at the very least the Kremlin. Sanctions for frivolous legal actions have been around for a long time. FRCP Rule 11(b) states:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

FRCP 11(c)(2) provides:

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b) . The motion must be served under Rule 5 , but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

Some of the actions to enjoin the President's authority are, at best, creative and fanciful. Nowhere is it written, except perhaps in mass media, that any party may file any lawsuit, as long as the party is a political adversary. At some point compliance with "existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law" is necessary, to prevent the judicial process from becoming a free-for-all.

 

[Crepitus]

With New Decree, Trump Seeks to Cow the Legal Profession (link) (no paywall, excerpt below)
This breathless headline and article would make you think we are talking about Tienanmen Square or at the very least the Kremlin. Sanctions for frivolous legal actions have been around for a long time. FRCP Rule 11(b) states:

FRCP 11(c)(2) provides:

Some of the actions to enjoin the President's authority are, at best, creative and fanciful. Nowhere is it written, except perhaps in mass media, that any party may file any lawsuit, as long as the party is a political adversary. At some point compliance with "existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law" is necessary, to prevent the judicial process from becoming a free-for-all.

He's breaking the first amendment.

It's far from his first time.

 

[BluesLegend]

The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

Excellent! The American people made their choice, Trump is in and Democrats are kicked to the curb. Asshole Democrats can't run to Dem SHILL judges and law firms to FORCE the continuation of Dem policies Americans just rejected in a national election.

So play stupid games, win stupid prizes Dems you scum!

 

[JimH52]

He's breaking the first amendment.

It's far from his first time.

He is using intimidation to silence adversaries and anyone objecting to his lame policies. That is what fascists and dictators do.

 

[elektra]

He's breaking the first amendment.

It's far from his first time.

How

 

[elektra]

He is using intimidation to silence adversaries and anyone objecting to his lame policies. That is what fascists and dictators do.

Pure bullshit on your part.

We here you democrats from CNN to the NY times howling 24 hours a day

Silence, you don't know the meaning of the word

 

[JBG]

He is using intimidation to silence adversaries and anyone objecting to his lame policies. That is what fascists and dictators do.

Does any administration have the responsibility to fund speech against it?

 

[elektra]

What happened to good ole democrat extortion, "drop the investigation or we are not giving you billions."

 

[JimH52]

Does any administration have the responsibility to fund speech against it?

What are you talking about. This is not funding. This is threats and intimidation...MO for a convicted felon Mafia Boss.