Featured

Apparent “Fabricated Citations” in Smith v. Trump Motion Filed by One of the Defendants

admin
October 17, 2025
0Points
0
0

In the underlying lawsuit, Capitol Police officers are suing over injuries sustained in the January 6 riot; the defendants include President Trump and many others, including Kelly Meggs (an Oath Keepers member). Yesterday’s Order to Show Cause by Judge Amit Mehta (D.D.C.) orders Meggs’ counsel to “show cause … why the court should not impose sanctions and make a referral to relevant bar authorities for “knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of … law to a tribunal or fail[ing] to correct a false statement of … law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer”:

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel various Defendants, including Defendant Meggs, to respond to discovery requests and respond to initial disclosures. Ms. Stewart [Meggs’ lawyer] filed an opposition brief on behalf of Mr. Meggs (“Opposition”). The Opposition is rife with fabricated citations to this District Court’s Local Civil Rules, such as: “Civil Procedure Rule 104 (7)-(8),” “local Rule 104,” “D.D.C. local Rule 104(7),” “D.D.C. Rule 8(a),” “Court’s Rule 8(a),” and “L.R. 104.8.” Id. at 1, 5–7. These rules do not exist. The Opposition also includes fabricated block quotations purporting to recite the text of “D.D.C. local Rule 104(7)” and “D.D.C. Rule 8(a).”

On August 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief that noted the false citations in the Opposition. Ms. Stewart thereafter failed to take appropriate steps to withdraw or correct all of the clear errors. In a notice filed on August 6, 2025, counsel acknowledged her mistake in citing to “local Rule 104(7)” instead of, as intended, to Maryland District Court Local Rule 104(7), but she made no mention of any other false citation. Then, when she sought leave to file a surreply, she again referenced her error in misciting a “MD District local rule” but corrected no other error.

Ms. Stewart’s response to this Order to Show Cause shall explain (1) how the fabricated Local Civil Rule citations and quotations came to be included in the Opposition and (2) why upon reviewing Plaintiffs’ reply brief she did not take immediate steps to withdraw or fully correct the Opposition.

The response is due next Tuesday.

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 80

TRENDING

Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .