King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) Notwithstanding the apparent belief of Plaintiffs' counsel, this case is being tried in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. As noted throughout this decision, statutes, rules, and standards of professional responsibility apply. Considering Plaintiffs' attorneys' obligation to act within these parameters, this Court is curious as to what narrative Plaintiffs' attorneys wished to present through the video's release. The Telegram message Wood posted within hours of the hearing's conclusion gives some insight, 74 as do the introductory remarks in Plaintiffs' counsel's supplemental brief75. What is most important, however, and what very clearly reflects bad faith is that Plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to use the judicial process to frame a public “narrative.” Absent evidentiary or legal support for their claims, this seems to be one of the primary purposes of this lawsuit. 74 In the post, Wood expressed in part that he “thought [he] was attending a hearing in Venezuela or Communist China.” (ECF No. 151-1 at Pg ID 5278.) He further expressed that “[t]he rule of law and due process does [sic] not exist at this time in our country except in a very, very few courtrooms.” (Id.) 75 (Supp. Br. Filed by Campbell, ECF No. 167 at Pg ID 6679 (“Bias is hard for attorneys to avoid and it is undoubtedly no less difficult for judges. The difference is that there can be no tolerance for the influence of [] bias on a judicial decision. The issue of sanctions cannot be a partisan political exercise.” (internal citations omitted)).) Second, there is a basis to conclude that Plaintiffs' legal team asserted the allegations in their pleadings as opinion rather than fact, with the purpose of furthering counsel's political positions rather than pursuing any attainable legal relief. As an initial matter, several of the allegations asserted in this and similar lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs' attorneys are the subject of a lawsuit that the companies responsible for the Dominion election machines and software filed against Powell and her company, Defending the Republic, Inc.: U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. Powell, No. 1:21-cv00040 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 8, 2021) (“Dominion Action”).76 The State Defendants assert this in their supplemental brief. (ECF No. 118-2 at Pg ID 4797, 4803-05.) And Powell admits this in response to the State Defendants' brief (ECF No. 120 at Pg ID 4998, 5003), as well as in her motion to dismiss the Dominion Action (ECF No. 118-2 at PDF Pg 46 (conceding that “[t]he lawsuits containing the underlying allegations” in the Dominion Action, including “the exhibits and evidence on which the alleged defamatory statements are based, ” “were filed in . . . Michigan”)). 76 Other statements by Powell are at issue in the Dominion Action but the Court's focus here is on those that are made in the instant lawsuit. In response to the Dominion plaintiffs' claim that Powell's assertions here were defamatory, Powell has maintained that the statements were “opinions” which “reasonable people would not accept . . . as fact.” (Id. at PDF Pg 63.) Powell makes clear that at least some of the allegations in the current lawsuit were made to support her chosen political candidate. Specifically, Powell's brief in support of her motion to dismiss in the Dominion Action states: “Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell's statements were made as an attorney-advocate for her preferred candidate and in support of her legal and political positions.” (Id. at PDF Pg 62.) “The highly charged and political nature of the statements, ” Powell continues in her brief, “underscores their political and hence partisan nature.” (Id. at PDF Pg 61.) Powell characterizes her statements and allegations as “vituperative, abusive and inexact�� “political speech, ” as well as “inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.” (Id. at PDF Pg 6263.) Powell latched onto the Dominion plaintiffs' 38