King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) sinister language to describe an event does Candidate, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 902 ¶ 91 not make that event sinister, wrongful, (quoting Bomer Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at Pg ID unlawful, or fraudulent. 1008-10) (emphasis added).) c) Counsel's failure to inquire into the evidentiary support for factual assertions Plaintiffs' counsel failed to ask questions of the individuals who submitted affidavits that were central to the factual allegations in the pleadings. To support the allegation that Defendants permitted “election workers [to] change votes for Trump and other Republican candidates, ”61 Plaintiffs point to one thing-namely, Articia Bomer's affidavit (“Bomer Affidavit”): 61 (ECF No. 6 at Pg. ID 942 ¶ 190(d) (citing IIB).) I observed a station where election workers were working on scanned ballots that had issues that needed to be manually corrected. I believe some of these workers were changing votes that had been cast for Donald Trump and other Republican candidates.62 Per the Amended Complaint, this is the only evidence and only “eyewitness testimony of election workers manually changing votes for Trump to votes for Biden.” (ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 902 ¶ 91.) 62 (See IIB - “Election Workers Fraudulently Forged, Added, Removed or Otherwise Altered Information on Ballots, Qualified Voter List and Other Voting Records, ” Subsection 4 - “Election Workers Changed Votes for Trump and Other Republican Candidate, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 902 ¶ 91 When the Court asked whether an affiant's belief that something occurred constitutes evidentiary support for that occurrence, Plaintiffs' counsel stated: “[I]f you see it, that would certainly help you to form a belief.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5450.) The Court then asked: “[D]id anyone inquire as to whether or not [] Bomer actually saw someone change a vote?” (Id. at Pg ID 5452.) The Court was met with silence. (Id.) As an initial matter, an affiant's subjective belief that an event occurred does not constitute evidence that the event in fact occurred. But more importantly, during the hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that the Bomer Affidavit had evidentiary value only if Bomer saw election workers manually changing votes for Former President Trump to votes for President Biden. Yet, without asking Bomer if she saw such manual changes, Plaintiffs' counsel submitted her affidavit as evidentiary support that such manual changes in fact occurred. This alone fell short of counsel's obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry and is the very laxity that the sanctions schemes are designed to penalize. And Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to ask this material question-when paired with their affirmative decision to label Bomer's testimony as “eyewitness testimony of election workers manually changing votes”-evinces bad faith. Plaintiffs' counsel may not bury their heads in the sand and thereafter make affirmative proclamations about what occurred above ground. In such cases, ignorance is not bliss-it is sanctionable. (quoting Bomer Aff., ECF No. 6-3 at Pg ID 1008-10) (emphasis added).) 62 (See IIB - “Election Workers Fraudulently Forged, Added, Removed or Otherwise Altered Information on Ballots, Qualified Voter List and Other Voting Records, ” Subsection 4 - “Election Workers Changed Votes for Trump and Other Republican d) Counsel's failure to inquire into evidentiary support taken from other lawsuits As evidentiary support in this case, Plaintiffs' counsel attached affidavits to their pleadings that were submitted in two previously filed electionchallenge lawsuits without engaging in a reasonable inquiry as to their contents. 33