Michigan: a Lake of Lawfare Nonsense if Your Name is Lin Wood

by John Exum

The idea that Lin Wood could be sanctioned for unethical conduct in Michigan on the basis of Sidney Powell's lawsuit that he never even signed, filed, submitted, or subsequently advocated is deliriously laughable. Defending against this nonsense is but one additional legal expense for #FightBack.

One might ask: Why now, and not after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals makes its ruling about whether sanctions should be imposed?

One might reasonably answer: Just in case the 6th Circuit does not rule the way the 65 Project wishes, the 65 Project needs a back-up plan to continue penalizing Lin Wood and other lawyers who dared to seek redress within the court system for the injustices of the 2020 election.

The 65 Project's website does not publish a specific complaint against Lin Wood, but it leaves no room for doubt that Lin's a target. Its Aug. 31, 2022 complaint against Emily Newman rebukes Ms. Newman's supposed "part of a coordinated attempt to 'release the Kraken' on American democracy, alongside Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Lin Wood and John Eastman …" Emily Newman, along with Lin Wood and others, is one of the respondents on today's attached complaint from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. See attachment at the foot of this article.

Two Project 65 players in the Michigan non-case of King v. Whitmer, who are desperately trying to ensnare Lin, are David Fink and his son Nathan Fink. David and Nathan are both former advisors to Project 65. David represents the City of Detroit.

David Fink is adamant that under Federal Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that Lin be sanctioned for lawyerly misconduct in the King v. Whitmer case, even though it's at best tenuous that Lin was even minimally involved. Rule 11 requires that "a pleading, written motion or other paper" that an attorney presents to the court be signed, filed, submitted or later advocated by that attorney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). For an attorney to face sanctions under Rule 11, the attorney must have violated paragraph (b). Id. at 11(c). Lin never signed, filed, submitted or subsequently advocated that case. That Lin's social media posts from late December of 2020 and early January of 2021 suggest that Lin might have known of this Michigan case's existence does not mean he was knowledgeable – let alone liable – for the King v. Whitmer case's contents.

Moreover, U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan mentioned nothing in her ruling at the trial court level about this case being frivolous. She only granted Rule 11 sanctions in response to a motion from David Fink on Jan. 5, 2021. See p. 12 of Judge Parker's Opinion and Order on Sanctions. Even if this case could be characterized as frivolous, Sidney Powell – to her credit – has assumed responsibility for it. At about the one hour and 56 minute marker of a hearing before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 8, 2022, Sidney Powell proclaimed herself to have been "the driving force of this [King v. Whitmer] lawsuit." In this same hearing, Sidney Powell explicitly stated that neither Ms. Newman, Ms. Juntilla, nor Mr. Wood be sanctioned under Rule 11.

Your prayers and your donations are invaluable in the #FightBack against this unconscionable nonsense.

See Lin's own comments from his Telegram posts https://t.me/linwoodspeakstruth/29230 & https://t.me/linwoodspeakstruth/29234, respectively: