What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Malthus]

It would seem then to make it easier under this US Federal Rule (which I think is in fact superior on this point to what we have here in Ontario).

I doubt a court in Ontario would order costs personally if the only default on the part of the lawyer was credulously believing the client's version of events, when that turns out to be false. I think more would be required, at east a reasonable inference that the lawyer was being wilfully blind because of a desire to harass/delay.

Not that this difference would matter in the case of the Trump lawsuits, as I think those would be sanctionable here. They appear the very epitome of vexatious.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well to be fair there were a lot of Trump law suits and most of them were probably not sanctionable.  But that's because most of them didn't really seek to do very much, beyond fiddle around with conditions for observers or challenges to small numbers of discrete "late" ballots, none of which was remotely material to the outcome.  For example, in one where Rudy took on a big role in Court, he was quick to disclaim any fraud allegations in the hearing, even as he was proclaiming it was about fraud in the companion press conferences.  That's scummy but not Rule 11 sanctionable because the District Court doesn't supervise press conferences. (the state Bar Asssn OTOH may take a different view)

The Colorado one that resulted in sanctions was just bonkers, to the level of raising mental health issues about the practitioner (a real issue BTW which sadly crops up sometimes).

The other one where a sanctions motion is pending and could result in an order is the notorious Michigan Sidney Powell/Lin Wood "Kraken" lawsuit.  Definite exposure there as it appears misleading affidavits were knowingly submitted with false information and in at least one instance without the knowledge of the affiant. 

[crazy canuck]

It would seem then to make it easier under this US Federal Rule (which I think is in fact superior on this point to what we have here in Ontario).

I doubt a court in Ontario would order costs personally if the only default on the part of the lawyer was credulously believing the client's version of events, when that turns out to be false. I think more would be required, at east a reasonable inference that the lawyer was being wilfully blind because of a desire to harass/delay.

Not that this difference would matter in the case of the Trump lawsuits, as I think those would be sanctionable here. They appear the very epitome of vexatious.

I don't think that is the point.  It is part of the oath and code of conduct to which we are both subject, not to make claims in court that are not supported by evidence.  If that evidence is our client having direct knowledge that something occurred that that is good enough.  But that is not what was happening these cases.  They were conspiracy theories unsupported by any evidence.  In the rare cases lawyers make claims unsupported by any evidence our courts do assess costs against them personally.

[Malthus]

It would seem then to make it easier under this US Federal Rule (which I think is in fact superior on this point to what we have here in Ontario).

I doubt a court in Ontario would order costs personally if the only default on the part of the lawyer was credulously believing the client's version of events, when that turns out to be false. I think more would be required, at east a reasonable inference that the lawyer was being wilfully blind because of a desire to harass/delay.

Not that this difference would matter in the case of the Trump lawsuits, as I think those would be sanctionable here. They appear the very epitome of vexatious.

I don't think that is the point.  It is part of the oath and code of conduct to which we are both subject, not to make claims in court that are not supported by evidence.  If that evidence is our client having direct knowledge that something occurred that that is good enough.  But that is not what was happening these cases.  They were conspiracy theories unsupported by any evidence.  In the rare cases lawyers make claims unsupported by any evidence our courts do assess costs against them personally.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing.

I agree with you that these Trumpite cases are not merely cases of believing a client who turns out to be unreliable. They go well beyond that, deep into the realm of the vexatious. They are based on wilful distortions of the truth and a reasonable lawyer would know that. As I said, basing cases on such stuff would be sanctionable under our rules, I believe.

I was merely exploring the hypothetical differences between the US federal rule and the ones I am familiar with. While there are differences, I think that when it comes to these Trumpite cases, they are not material differences.

[Malthus]

Well to be fair there were a lot of Trump law suits and most of them were probably not sanctionable.  But that's because most of them didn't really seek to do very much, beyond fiddle around with conditions for observers or challenges to small numbers of discrete "late" ballots, none of which was remotely material to the outcome.  For example, in one where Rudy took on a big role in Court, he was quick to disclaim any fraud allegations in the hearing, even as he was proclaiming it was about fraud in the companion press conferences.  That's scummy but not Rule 11 sanctionable because the District Court doesn't supervise press conferences. (the state Bar Asssn OTOH may take a different view)

The Colorado one that resulted in sanctions was just bonkers, to the level of raising mental health issues about the practitioner (a real issue BTW which sadly crops up sometimes).

The other one where a sanctions motion is pending and could result in an order is the notorious Michigan Sidney Powell/Lin Wood "Kraken" lawsuit.  Definite exposure there as it appears misleading affidavits were knowingly submitted with false information and in at least one instance without the knowledge of the affiant.

Without knowing the details of the various cases, I read that part of the reason these were sanctionable was that the lawyers just cut and paste the same losing evidence and arguments that had been used elsewhere ... presumably, others cutting and pasting such stuff are likely to find courts in the mood for sanctioning them for wasting their time.

[Jacob]

+300% impact sounds like a pretty good deal.

Normally you'd have to be riding a war horse and charging with a lance for that sort of bonus, so yeah that's pretty swank.

[Syt]

I'm so out of shape my butt has +300% impact when I sit down.   

[Solmyr]

I want the card with the Eagle. Has a certain evil cool about it.

Somebody must have already photoshopped a swastika below the eagle.

[Syt]

Color scheme reminds me of the Roman Empire.

[PDH]

I think I would go for the bottom left one that has the misspelling.

[Syt]

Looks like they took the the first free vector graphic of an American eagle.

[The Minsky Moment]

Looks like they took the the first free vector graphic of an American eagle.

The card gets you preferential entry to all press conferences held at the Ritz-Carlton Bail Bonds parking lot.

[Sheilbh]

Anyone able to explain/interpret this one from today?

[The Minsky Moment]

The dismissal motions of Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell and Rudy G were all denied in the Dominion defamation lawsuit.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.45.0.pdf

Based on this opinion I don't see a viable path for any of them at the summary judgment stage.  Either they settle or eventually face a civil trial.

[viper37]

The dismissal motions of Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell and Rudy G were all denied in the Dominion defamation lawsuit.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.45.0.pdf

Based on this opinion I don't see a viable path for any of them at the summary judgment stage.  Either they settle or eventually face a civil trial.

Given the case, I'd say nothing short of a full, public, and repeated recantation would satisfy Dominion, on top of monetary compensation.