King v. Whitmer
CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021)
unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual
allegations and claims without engaging in the
required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these
proceedings even after they acknowledged that it
was too late to attain the relief sought.
And this case was never about fraud-it was about
undermining the People's faith in our democracy
and debasing the judicial process to do so.
While there are many arenas-including print,
television, and social media-where protestations,
conjecture, and speculation may be advanced,
such expressions are neither permitted nor
welcomed in a court of law. And while we as a
country pride ourselves on the freedoms embodied
within the First Amendment, it is well-established
that an attorney's freedom of speech is
circumscribed upon “entering” the courtroom.2
rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of
the judiciary along the way.3 As such, the Court is
duty-bound to grant the motions for sanctions filed
by Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants and is
imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. §
1927, and its own inherent authority.
3 Plaintiffs' counsel and their counsel have
suggested that this Court's handling of
these
proceedings
and
any
resultant
decision can be expected based on the
President who appointed the undersigned.
This is part of a continuing narrative
fostered by Plaintiffs' counsel to undermine
the institutions that uphold our democracy.
It represents the same bad faith that is at
the base of this litigation. To be clear, all
federal
judges,
President
regardless
appoints
them,
of
which
take
oaths
2 See Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 717,
affirming that they will “faithfully and
720-21 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gentile v.
impartially discharge” their duties, 28
State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1071
U.S.C. § 453, and uphold and protect the
(1991)) (“[The Supreme Court] has noted .
Constitution of the United States, 5 U.S.C.
. . that ‘[i]t is unquestionable that in the
§ 3331.
courtroom itself . . . whatever right to ‘free
speech' an attorney has is extremely
circumscribed.... [I]n filing motions and
advocating for his client in court, [an
attorney is] not engaged in free expression;
he [is] simply doing his job. In that narrow
capacity, he voluntarily accept[s] almost
unconditional restraints on his personal
speech rights .... For these reasons, . . . in
the context of the courtroom proceedings,
an attorney retains no personal First
Amendment rights ....”).
Indeed, attorneys take an oath to uphold and honor
our legal system. The sanctity of both the
courtroom and the litigation process are preserved
only when attorneys adhere to this oath and follow
the rules, and only when courts impose sanctions
when attorneys do not. And despite the haze of
confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel
intentionally attempted to create by filing this
lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs'
attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the
I. Procedural History
On November 3, 2020, a record 5.5 million
Michigan residents voted in the presidential
election, resulting in then-Former Vice-President
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. securing over 150, 000 more
votes than then-President Donald J. Trump.4 By
the following evening, President Biden had been
declared the winner in the State.5Even though
Michigan law establishes an extensive procedure
for challenging elections, see Mich. Comp. Laws
§§ 168.831-.832, .879, Plaintiffs did not avail
themselves of those procedures, as they conceded
at the July 12, 2021 motion hearing before this
Court (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5332-33).
4 Moving forward, the Court refers to the
current and former presidents as President
Biden
and
Former
President
Trump,
respectively.
2