Today’s episode updates two separate lawsuits related to the 1/6 insurrection: Rep. Eric Swalwell’s suit against Trump, Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and the ongoing drama surrounding sanctions for the Kraken lawyers in King v. Whitmer, the Michigan lawsuit that exposed just how nonsensical all of the Kraken election lawsuits were.
In the first segment, we learn that neither Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice nor counsel for the House of Representatives believe that “inciting insurrection” is within the scope of your employment if you’re a member of the House of Representatives, so… Mo Brooks is on his own on this one. This is all about the Westfall Act, which we last discussed in Episode 498.
In the main segment, we check back in now that all the supplemental briefs have been filed after the mammoth 6-hour Michigan sanctions hearing. Learn who had the worst filing (hint: someone did worse than Lin Wood!), who had the… least worst?… and what is in store for all of the Kraken lawyers! BONUS: We’ve attached the complete six-hour hearing transcript.
- Swalwell v. Trump: (a) docket report; (b) Swalwell’s opposition to Brooks’s Westfall Act motion; (c) decision of House counsel to decline to represent Brooks; and (d) DOJ’s decision to decline to represent Brooks. We last discussed the Westfall Act in Episode 498.
- King v. Whitmer transcript of the sanctions hearing.
- Lin Wood’s (a) brief 1 and brief 2; and (b) prior inconsistent brief in the Delaware Supreme Court admitting he represented plaintiffs in Michigan.
- Donald Campbell’s brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, and the rest of the Kraken idiots.
- Hoo boy, the brief filed by Stefanie Lambert Junttila on her own behalf… maybe don’t represent yourself, Stef? And just because Stef didn’t read it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005).
- The City of Detroit’s (a) Safe Harbor letter and attached motion; and (b) supplemental brief (that’s fire)!
- Remember all of this is about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Finally, if you search the transcript you’ll see Howard Kleinhendler make the “fraud vitiates everything” argument, for which David Fink rightly skewers him in the City of Detroit’s supplemental brief. Check out more on this stupid argument here.
None. Invite us on!
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
–Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at email@example.com!
One Reply to “OA512: Actions Continue to Have Consequences!”