King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) representations” made in his supplemental much on the assertions of any of Plaintiffs' brief regarding why this Court does not attorneys have “jurisdiction” to sanction him. (ECF counsel for the City aptly describes-have No. 162 at Pg ID 6124.) He is entitled to been like “[s]hifting [s]ands[, ]” the Court no such thing. See In re Big Rapids Mall notes that Rohl's sworn affidavit was Assoc., 98 F.3d at 929 (recognizing that an attached to a supplemental brief filed by evidentiary hearing is “not necessarily Plaintiffs' counsel in response to the City's required full motion for sanctions. (See ECF No. 111 at knowledge of the facts and is familiar with Pg ID 4556, 4559, 4561-62.) No member the conduct of the attorneys”). The July 12 of Plaintiffs' legal team objected to any part hearing provided Wood the opportunity to of Rohl's affidavit. where the court has present his evidence and, as noted supra, he had the further opportunity to attach an affidavit as evidence to his supplemental brief. More importantly, Wood's social media postings undermine his current assertions, as do his statements in other court proceedings. As discussed during the July 12 hearing, on the day the City e-mailed copies of the Safe Harbor Letter and Safe Harbor Motion to Plaintiffs' counsel, Wood tweeted a link to an article containing a copy of the motion, stating “[w]hen you get falsely accused by the likes of David Fink and Mark Elias . . . in a propaganda rag like Law & Crime, you smile because you know you are over the target and the enemy is runningscared [sic]!” (ECF No. 164-6 at Pg ID 6424; ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5369-70.) On January 5, 2021, the day the City filed the motion, Wood tweeted a link to an article with the motion, stating that it was “unfair” for the City to seek sanctions against him. (ECF No. 164-7 at Pg ID 6426.) In a federal courtroom in the Eastern District of New York on January 11, Wood acknowledged that the City was “trying to get [him] disbarred.” (ECF No. 164-12 at Pg ID 6506.) Even more importantly, prior to the July 12 hearing, Wood took credit for filing this lawsuit.21 In a brief submitted in the Delaware Supreme Court, Wood claimed, through his counsel: 21 Notably, Rohl stated under oath that Wood, along with Powell, “spearheaded” this lawsuit. (ECF No. 111-1 at Pg ID 4597.) Though the Court hesitates to rely too because their positions- as [Wood] represented plaintiffs challenging the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Michigan and Wisconsin.... In the days and weeks following the [General Election of 2020], Wood became involved in litigation contesting the election's results or the manner votes were taken or counted in critical “swing states.” Among those cases in which Wood became involved were lawsuits in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Wood's own suit in the State of Georgia. (ECF No. 164-13 at Pg ID 6525-26 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).) These statements are binding on Wood. See K.V.G. Props., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 900 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)) (noting that pleadings, which are judicial admissions, “are binding legal documents that can be admitted as evidence against that party in subsequent proceedings”).22 22 See also United States v. Burns, 109 Fed.Appx. 52, 58 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that courts have “discretion to consider statements made in a brief to be a judicial admission” and binding on the party who made them); Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for Certificate Holders of Park Place Sec., Inc., 744 Fed.Appx. 906, 914 (6th Cir. 2018) (same). For these reasons, while Wood now seeks to distance himself from this litigation to avoid sanctions, the Court concludes that he was aware of this lawsuit when it was filed, was aware that 14