"Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. But attorneys cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same.And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order. Here’s why:
America’s civil litigation system affords individuals the privilege to file a lawsuit to allege a violation of law. Individuals, however, must litigate within the established parameters for filing a claim. Such parameters are set forth in statutes, rules of civil procedure, local court rules, and professional rules of responsibility and ethics. Every attorney who files a claim on behalf of a client is charged with the obligation to know these statutes and rules, as well as the law allegedly violated." This isn't "legislating from the bench".
One of the judge's crucial jobs is, however, to WEIGH EVIDENCE. At all stages. If there's none, there should be no case accepted and, if the lawyers were aware they had no evidence, the claim should not initially have been legally presented. Look to the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench", as some say, for legislating from the bench. They do so by upholding or striking down laws which were written and passed by the legislative bodies and passed or vetoed by the executive. They've been doing that with the Roberts/Alito court through the appellate process (all the cases)---and doing it at best poorly and at worst nefariously under the guise of "constitutionalism". Rewiring the logic of precedent, convoluting rationale, and sometimes blatantly ignoring standing precedent to overturn long-standing laws is indeed political legislating from the bench. They need not answer to ethical standards, or even explain their rulings if they so choose. The lawyers bringing the cases below that level do, however, need to show sufficient evidence and need to explain themselves. Those shtheels didn't. They were called out for it.
Your “ view “ of the Michigan. Judges decision on the fraud that was perpetrated on the country in 2020 could not be any further from reality . She decided to legislate from the bench . A judges job is to administer the law as written not interpret it to their liking !
The legal reality--a judicial requirement--is that a judge, by way of various channels, not the least of which is a grand jury in larger criminal cases, (several of which served their purpose in other criminal cases charging Trump which have since been invalidated…he is, nevertheless a convicted felon) must see before the bench a claim that is backed up by some sort of evidence, giving the case some sort of legal standing in order for it to be brought to the bench in the first place. She quite articulately points out that there was no legal standing, no basis or foundation to back up a judicial claim. Therefore, those lawyers were in violation of the law that requires legal standing for a legitimate case. You’ve inverted the logic, the law, which only reflects that you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that the law is only there to persecute you and yours. it’s a classic paradigm of lawless people convincing folks they want to support their lawlessness that the law is against them. You may believe that there is prevalent proof of election fraud, but until a judge can actually see sufficient indication that it may have occurred there is no case. Those lawyers were wasting taxpayer dollars as well as the energies of the court, and she was right to call them out for it. There were 60+ election fraud claims brought before the courts. All but two failed to pass muster or have standing.
"Individuals may have a right (within certain bounds) to disseminate allegations of fraud unsupported by law or fact in the public sphere. But attorneys cannot exploit their privilege and access to the judicial process to do the same.And when an attorney has done so, sanctions are in order. Here’s why:
America’s civil litigation system affords individuals the privilege to file a lawsuit to allege a violation of law. Individuals, however, must litigate within the established parameters for filing a claim. Such parameters are set forth in statutes, rules of civil procedure, local court rules, and professional rules of responsibility and ethics. Every attorney who files a claim on behalf of a client is charged with the obligation to know these statutes and rules, as well as the law allegedly violated." This isn't "legislating from the bench".
One of the judge's crucial jobs is, however, to WEIGH EVIDENCE. At all stages. If there's none, there should be no case accepted and, if the lawyers were aware they had no evidence, the claim should not initially have been legally presented. Look to the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench", as some say, for legislating from the bench. They do so by upholding or striking down laws which were written and passed by the legislative bodies and passed or vetoed by the executive. They've been doing that with the Roberts/Alito court through the appellate process (all the cases)---and doing it at best poorly and at worst nefariously under the guise of "constitutionalism". Rewiring the logic of precedent, convoluting rationale, and sometimes blatantly ignoring standing precedent to overturn long-standing laws is indeed political legislating from the bench. They need not answer to ethical standards, or even explain their rulings if they so choose. The lawyers bringing the cases below that level do, however, need to show sufficient evidence and need to explain themselves. Those shtheels didn't. They were called out for it.
Your “ view “ of the Michigan. Judges decision on the fraud that was perpetrated on the country in 2020 could not be any further from reality . She decided to legislate from the bench . A judges job is to administer the law as written not interpret it to their liking !
The legal reality--a judicial requirement--is that a judge, by way of various channels, not the least of which is a grand jury in larger criminal cases, (several of which served their purpose in other criminal cases charging Trump which have since been invalidated…he is, nevertheless a convicted felon) must see before the bench a claim that is backed up by some sort of evidence, giving the case some sort of legal standing in order for it to be brought to the bench in the first place. She quite articulately points out that there was no legal standing, no basis or foundation to back up a judicial claim. Therefore, those lawyers were in violation of the law that requires legal standing for a legitimate case. You’ve inverted the logic, the law, which only reflects that you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that the law is only there to persecute you and yours. it’s a classic paradigm of lawless people convincing folks they want to support their lawlessness that the law is against them. You may believe that there is prevalent proof of election fraud, but until a judge can actually see sufficient indication that it may have occurred there is no case. Those lawyers were wasting taxpayer dollars as well as the energies of the court, and she was right to call them out for it. There were 60+ election fraud claims brought before the courts. All but two failed to pass muster or have standing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21049123-parker-decision-on-lawyer-sanctions/