The question is not whether they will be sanctioned, the question is how few will not be.
I so hope Lin Wood is found to be in contempt of court.
Apparently, he recorded and broadcast some of the hearing held by Judge Parker today, after Parker had been explicit that no recording, video or audio, be made or shared by anyone concerned
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/lin-wood-deletes-telegram-post-that-may-have-violated-court-order
Is it perpetual Opposite Day with these clowns?
I believe he will cite the “you’re not the boss of me” precedent.
I think his story is that he merely re-posted a recording that was already on Telegram, which was recorded by someone else. Still, an incredibly stupid action. You really don’t want to piss-off Federal Judges. I suspect he did it to gin-up some more support from his followers, to show how badly he is being treated. Hell, the judge wouldn’t even allow him to defend himself. I suspect Mr. Wood felt he had nothing to lose. At least, he is likely to gain more from the publicity than what the contempt charges will be. Whether it will be enough to cover the inevitable sanctions, we’ll have to see.
When the court reporter asks the counsel and witnesses to stop interrupting one another, you know it’s serious.
Actually, that’s not uncommon.
True. The court reporter that my office used to contract for family-law special settings (the court does not provide, unless it’s a restraining order) used to complain to me about certain attorneys talking over one another.
I did wonder how they dealt with that in their transcripts. It must be a real challenge.
Proofreader for court reporters here. They are amazingly good at handling cross talk, mumbling, um stutterers, jet speed speakers, and other such horrors but they’re only (semi-super)human and will interrupt when it becomes impossible to do their job. A lot of depositions and court proceedings are being done via Zoom, which adds a fresh layer of difficulty.
Question: it seems the hearing was live-streamed on YouTube for the public to watch. What then would be the legal rationale for forbidding recordings? Why is it OK for the public to watch it live but not OK later?
My theory is that the judge didn’t want the participants, especially Wood and Powell, acting out in order to manufacture video clips for social media, which they would then misrepresent and share widely.
The judge in the Dominion case threw out the motion to dismiss. He threw it out hard. Everything. Dominion can sue their grifting asses off. In DC with the most liberal juries of them all, no change of venue. Dominion has grounds to sue for deceptive trade practices as well as defamation. On the question of actual malice, which, IIRC, some people thought would be a high bar to clear……well, Dominion in cleared it. In the words of Judge Carl Nichols “This wasn’t a close call.”
The judge had lots of other words, too. This sentence from this Politico article sums it up quite well.
The three defendants arguments found little resonance with Nichols, a Trump appointee that seemed disdainful of their conduct.
He was pretty disdainful……on the various motions to change venue away from DC, the judge noted that the defendants didn’t seem to have any problem making frequent trips to DC in order to overthrow the government ( OK, he didn’t actual say the words “overthrow the government”, but I’m pretty sure he was thinking it).
He was disdainful about a lot of other stuff, too. Here’s a link to the actual opinion. It’s fun.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv0213-36
Well, I mean, a pre-trial Motion to Dismiss is almost always a reach in any non-trivial case. The basic standard is, “suppose everything the Plaintiffs allege was true, they still have no chance of winning.” And then the actual pleadings in the motions were ludicrous on top of that. Powell’s motion argued that no reasonable person would have taken her allegedly defamatory statements as statements of fact, which was just beyond ridiculous. I don’t think any legal pundits outside of Trumpian orbit gave any credence to the possibility of the Motion to Dismiss being granted. But that just means the case will proceed, not that the verdict is a forgone conclusion.
Best case scenario is that the defendants will suffer substantial financial losses due to legal fees. For those familiar with these legal proceedings: if the court finds in favor of the defendants, does the plaintiff have to pay their legal fees?
Not necessarily. sometimes yes, sometimes no.
So it’s left to the discretion of the court/judge?
I think it varies by location and even by type of lawsuit, but there are often separate proceedings to determine court costs and how they are apportioned.
ETA: IANECTBAL
I am not even close to being a lawyer
US District Judge in Michigan recommends suspension or disbarment for the “Kraken” team.
So that’s what “Release The Kraken” meant.