King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) going to win the 2020 election. (Id. at ¶ 3:23-4:9 (claiming that the results of the 2020 election would be “the Trump victory, ” and stating that “[Democrats] [have] effectively conceded that Trump is going to win at the voting booth”).) Indeed, Plaintiffs' attorneys waited until after votes were tallied to file this lawsuit, even though the record suggests that-well in advance of Election Day- they knew or should have known about the things of which they complained. (See, e.g., ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 927-933 (supporting allegation about “[D]ominion vulnerabilities to hacking” with an expert report dated August 24, 2020; a law review article dated December 27, 2019; letters dated October 6, 2006 and December 6, 2019; news articles dated May 4, 2010, August 10, 2017, and August 8, 2019; a public policy report published in 2016; and a cybersecurity advisory dated October 30, 2020).) This game of wait-and-see shows that counsel planned to challenge the legitimacy of the election if and only if Former President Trump lost. And if that happened, they would help foster a predetermined narrative making election fraud the culprit. These things-separately, but especially collectively-evince bad faith and improper purpose in bringing this suit. Fifth, Joshua Merritt is someone whose identity counsel redacted, referring to him only as “Spyder” or “Spider, ” and who counsel identified in their pleadings and briefs as “a former electronic intelligence analyst with 305th Military Intelligence” and a “US Military Intelligence expert.” (Id. at Pg ID 880 ¶ 17, 932 ¶ 161; ECF No. 7 at Pg ID 1835.) Yet, even after learning that Merritt never completed any intelligence analyst training program with the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion, Plaintiffs' counsel remained silent as to this fact. In its motion for sanctions, the City emphasizes Merritt's statement that the “original paperwork [he] sent in [to Plaintiffs' counsel] didn't say that” he was an electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence. (ECF No. 78 at Pg ID 3657.) According to the City, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence, which includes the battalion, stated that “[Merritt] kept washing out of courses . . . [h]e's not an intelligence analyst.” (Id.) Plaintiffs' counsel did not dispute these assertions in their response brief. (ECF No. 95 at Pg ID 4144.) Nor did Plaintiffs' counsel dispute these assertions during the hearing. Instead, Kleinhendler argued during the hearing that Merritt's “expertise” is based on “his years and years of experience in cyber security as a confidential informant working for the United States Government” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5375)-not Merritt's purported military intelligence training. Clearly this is dishonest. This was not the experience on which Plaintiffs' attorneys premised Merritt's expertise in their pleadings and Motion for Injunctive Relief, and Merritt never claims in his declaration that he has “years and years of experience in cyber security as a confidential informant working for the United States Government.”79(See ECF No. 6-25.) Instead, it was precisely Merritt's experience as “an electronic intelligence analyst under 305th Military Intelligence” that Plaintiffs' attorneys presented to convince the Court and the world that he is a reliable expert. 79 To the extent that Plaintiffs' attorneys claim that an “affidavit” attached to their reply to the motion to seal includes this assertion (see ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5385 (citing ECF Nos. 50, 50-1)), it does not. That “affidavit” is not signed by or associated with anyone, much less someone named Spyder, Spider, or Joshua Merritt. (ECF No. 50-1.) Kleinhendler argued during the hearing, however, that he first learned about this inconsistency after the case was dismissed on January 14. (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5375.) “I had no reason to doubt, ” Kleinhendler explained. (Id.) This also is dishonest. 41