In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 14 – In an elections case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan involving Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, on the morning of July 12 Inner City Press live-tweeted a hearing before Judge Linda V. Parker, here (podcast here)

Now on July 14, Lin Wood et al. have asked Judge Parker to release or allow the publishing of the video of the proceeding: “Throughout our  history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the  American judicial system.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC,  710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). This is a “common law public right  of access.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3rd Cir. 2001)... In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d  470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983).

Release of the video would enhance the  transparency appropriate for a case of such public interest."

But on the same day, Judge Parker denied it: "
On July 14, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an emergency motion asking the Court to release the video of the July 12 hearing in this matter. (ECF No. 152.) Counsel argues that “[t]hroughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system.” (Id. at Pg ID 5286 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983).) The Court in fact threw the virtual doors to the July 12 proceeding wide open—far wider than could have been accommodated had the hearing been  conducted in person. As counsel notes in the motion, more than 13,000 people watched live, “viewing the proceedings just as they were conducted.” (ECF No. 152 at Pg ID 5287.) As to counsel’s suggestion that the video is needed to prepare a supplement brief, attorneys routinely prepare such briefs following a hearing without video or audio recordings of the proceedings and often without a transcript. For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the emergency motion (ECF No. 152) is DENIED."

From July 12: Lawyer Fink: "What they filed in this case was unreadable, it was mocked. It was sloppy & should never have been filed." Judge Parker: Would the lawyer on the phone line like to add anything? Alright, we're going to move on.

Mr. Patterson: I agree with Mr. Fink. Patterson: The goal was to throw shade of the election. I urge the court to enter the relief that's sought.

Mr. Klein: I was -- Judge Parker: You have already spoken.

 Kleinhendler: We had to wait for the election to be certified.  Donald Campbell: We made an assertion on Dec 11 in good faith.

 Judge Parker: But if you said it'd be moot after Dec 14, why didn't you dismiss it? Campbell: We had a duty to zealously push our case.

Campbell: Three of our clients believed they were elected as electors by a Republic rump, in Lansing. Now the Supreme Court's determination had a light it did not have before. So it was decided by some, not Lin Wood, but yes Sidney Powell, pushed forward

Heather Meingast for Gov Whitmer: They said it would be moot. The idea that is was revitalized by a vote outside the capital is ridiculous. There's no mechanism for that. On Dec. 14 we sent our votes to the Archivist. I'm flabbergasted. Judge Parker: Thank you.

 Judge Parker: I've never heard this explanation before, about electors being elected, air quotes -- Campbell: I don't think I've ever heard air quotes in a case. Judge Parker: We'll you've seen them. [Inner City Press has too]

 Don Campbell is in a bow tie. Lin Wood has his chin in his hands. Sidney Powell has on the big pearls.  David Fink jumps in -- Campbell continues.

Judge Parker:  No, Mr. Campbell. Campbell: I'll mute.

 Fink: We're hearing for the first time that because three people thought they had a claim the lawyer had to go forward. But there's a problem: a lawyer must have valid theories, and facts. But mostly, we've never heard this before.

Fink: On December 14, they should have notified us of their new theory. I'm outraged they say we had a venal interest in collecting funds in Rule 11 sanctions. These folks were putting in jeopardy the safety of our Republic. They said, it's pending on appeal.

Fink: They still didn't dismiss after January 7, when the Congress accepted the electors. Instead, they kept moving forward. They waited to January 12 and they asked for an extension. We opposed it.

Fink:  The Court granted them 2 days. For 2 days we had to file a response to a writ of cert. On Jan 18 we asked if they were going to dismiss the appeal. My late partner reached out and he heard, It's my understanding Sidney's Powell is preparing it. It was moot

 Fink: On Feb 4, Sidney Powell sends out a social media post on Telegram that the case was still alive, and a conference coming up.  Judge Parker: Thank you Mr. Fink. Campbell: We briefed this in ECF 112, pages 27 to 30.

Campbell: Even after January 6, there is still a non-mootness issue because the issues are likely to be repeated and evade review, citing Del Monte, DC Circuit case.

 Judge Parker: I'm going to move to evidence, to determine if sanctions will be imposed. Judge Parker: Was this unreasonable or vexatious conduct? Does a lawyer have a duty to investigate? Campbell: Yes.

Judge Parker: Who read Russell Ramsland's affidavit before it was attached to your pleadings? Mr. Kleinhendler: I read it.

 Judge Parker: Mr. Wood? Lin Wood: I did not review any of the documents with regard to the complaint. My name was placed on there, but I had no involvement whatsoever in it.

 Judge Parker: Mr. Wood, did you give your permission? Wood: I had indicated to Sidney Powell if she needed a trial lawyer I would be available to help her. But I would not have objected. Judge Parker: Did you read it before it was filed?

Wood: I did not read it.Wood: I have not received any motion for sanctions. I'm here because your Honor has ordered me. But I do not believe there is jurisdiction over me. Judge Parker: But you gave Ms. Powell permission for, complete the sentence. Wood: I would help as a trial lawyer.

 Lin Wood: I saw an article in the newspaper about sanctions being sought in this case. I didn't understand. My name was only on the complaint and the amended complaint. Someone put my name on it. David Fink: Mr Wood was served with our Dec 15 safe harbor notice.

 David Fink: In Delaware, Mr. Wood attempted to burnish his credentials in some way, told the Superior Court that he was in fact involved in the Michigan case. He broadcast on social media his participation in this. He could have withdrawn his participation.

 Julia Haller: I did review the affidavit. Judge Parker: Before it was filed? Haller: Yes.  Judge Parker: Mr. Wood, you may respond to Mr. Fink.

Wood: I was not afforded any hearing in Delaware. That's on appeal, the right of the court to sua sponte discipline Wood: I didn't get any notice of this until I saw it in the newspaper. Judge Parker: That can be fleshed out. Wood: If I had been served, I would have had a duty to consider withdrawal.
 Judge Parker: Did you feel you needed to notify this court? Wood: I never moved to be admitted pro hac vice.

Judge Parker: We do not have pro hac vice status here in Michigan. When you come into the Eastern District, you familiarize yourself with the local rules.

 Lin Wood: Mr Fink has no idea what I discussed with Sidney Powell. Mr. Fink: We served him with a Rule 11 notice, on Dec 15, by email and mail, it did not come back to us.

Fink: There are also social media posts, in the Twitterverse if you will. Mr. Wood said, you know you're over the target when you're in the sights of Mr. Fink.  Judge Parker: Ms. Powell, did you ever tell Mr. Wood you were going to place his name on the pleading? 

Sidney Powell: I can't imagine I would have put Mr. Wood's name on a pleading without believing I had permission. Might there have been a misunderstanding? That's certainly possible.

Judge Parker: Now, on the purported experts.  Who spoke to Joshua Merritt?

A: There are some things I can't disclose in public, about his qualifications. He has worked as an undercover CI for multiple federal law enforcement and intelligence services

 Howard Kleinhendler, continuing: There was a subsequent dispute about what unit he was with. But the point is minor and irrelevant. His opinions are based on his years as a confidential informant in cyber security for the US. I can tell you more in camera.

Kleinhendler: He did train with the 305th. So it's not technically false.  Campbell: This is work product or privilege. That's why I'll have to interrupt.

Judge Parker: You may raise your hand. What about Matthew Brainard? Haller: I did. But it's work product.

Judge Parker: What about Mr. Briggs, and Ronald Watkins?

 Sidney Powell: I spoke with Mr. Ramsland several times. Fink: I am disturbed by what Mr. Kleinhendler says about Spider... We have a Washington Post article about Mr. Merritt. It's not important if it's accurate. It put the world on notice he was not an expert

Kleinhendler: I have spoken with Mr. Merritt. He is willing to come to court, perhaps in camera, to make it all clear. The Washington Post article has inaccuracies. Fink: But it put them on notice. Kleinhendler: There was never a further opportunity.

 Campbell: There was never a Daubert motion about Mr. Merritt. Judge Parker: Did Mr. Merritt draft the affidavit on his own? Julia Haller: We can bring him forward. But it's not relevant to sanctions. We would like an evidentiary hearing.

 Campbell: This is not the first time we are asking for an evidentiary hearing. But there's been no response... Fink: There had been no hand count, that's a term of art. Response: The affidavit said "hand countED." You're allowing Mr. Fink to act like an expert

Julia Haller: Mr. Fink is citing to unnamed Internet sources, but he's acting like an expert. We submit he is without basis. Fink: I was not citing the Internet. I said, 30 second on the Internet would show you  Judge Parker: And it was available on Nov 19, 2020.

 Judge Parker: Do you think just saying he saw election fraud is enough to put in an affidavit, saying tens of thousands? Campbell: If a jury believe it, yes. What are we supposed to have, three witnesses?

 Fink: We don't have pro hac vice, since 1981, but you sign a form about civility.

Judge Parker: I'm going to hear a bit more, than take a break.

And at the end, this: "Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Linda V. Parker: Motion Hearing held on 7/12/2021 re 78 MOTION for Sanctions, for Disciplinary Action, for Disbarment Referral and for Referral to State Bar Disciplinary Bodies filed by City of Detroit, 69 MOTION for Sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel filed by Robert Davis, 105 MOTION for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. 1927 filed by Jocelyn Benson, Gretchen Whitmer Disposition: Motion taken under advisement."

The case is King v. Whitmer (2:20-cv-13134) District Court, E.D. Michigan

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com