(Photo
by
John
Lamparski/Getty
Images
for
Hulu)
Alan
Dershowitz
cannot
be
sanctioned,
and
if
the
court
will
just
grant
him
the
minor
concession
of
30-60
days
to
wrangle
a
bunch
of
retired
law
professors,
he’ll
explain
why.
Maybe
he’ll
even
get
a
good
law
review
article
out
of
it!
Oh,
you
think
we’re
kidding? Nope!
We
therefore
respectfully
submit
that
before
this
court
considers
imposing
any
career
ruining
sanctions
on
someone
of
Dershowitz’s
esteemed
record
and
history,
now
also
facing
Bar
inquiry
in
Arizona
as
well
as
Massachusetts
over
this
same
issue,
that
there
should
be
clear
guidance
and
consensus
as
to
what
SHOULD
be
done
under
these
circumstances.The
issues
posed
by
the
choices
available
to
Dershowitz
in
such
a
circumstance
appear
to
be
a
proper
subject
for
a
law
review
article,
or
a
formal
ethical
opinion
by
the
Bar,
or
by
a
reasoned
decision
from
this
Court,
to
lend
guidance
on
a
subject
not
at
all
presently
clear.
Indeed,
Professor
Dershowitz
intends
to
do
just
that:
write
a
law
review
article
on
the
complexities
of
the
decision
that
must
be
made
by
an
increasing
number
of
retired
professors,
judges
and
lawyers
who
have
consulting
practices
that
are
limited
to
providing
legal
advice
without
wishing
to
undertake
the
core
responsibilities
of
lead
counsel,
counsel
of
record
or
full
counsel,
and
who
wish
to
not
be
subjected
to
the
full
responsibility
of
potential
sanctions
on
other
issues
they
are
not
involved
with
or
familiar
with
or
have
any
expertise
on.
That
is
from
a
“supplement”
filed
by
the
emeritus
Harvard
professor
last
week
in
the
case
of
Lake
v.
Fontes,
which
sought
to
force
Arizona
to
use
only
paper
ballots
and
ban
the
use
of
machines
both
to
cast
and
tabulate
votes
on
the
eve
of
the
2022
primary.
The
case
was
the
culmination
of
Pillow
salesman
Mike
Lindell’s
promise
to
“sue
all
the
machines,”
and
he
hired
his
regular
legal
team
of
Andrew
Parker,
MAGA
troll
Kurt
Olsen,
and
Dershowitz
for
the
mission.
US
District
Judge
John
Tuchi dismissed
the
case
for
lack
of
standing,
holding
that
Kari
Lake
and
secretary
of
state
candidate
Mark
Finchem,
the
named
plaintiffs,
had
“articulated
only
conjectural
allegations
of
potential
injuries
that
are
in
any
event
barred
by
the
Eleventh
Amendment,”
and
he
granted
Maricopa
County’s
request
for
sanctions,
excoriating
the
plaintiffs’
counsel
for
failing
to
undertake
“the
factual
and
legal
pre-filing
inquiry
that
the
circumstances
of
this
case
reasonably
permitted
and
required,”
which
would
have
revealed
that every
vote
in
Arizona
is
cast
on
a
paper
ballot
and
leaves
an
auditable
record.
Furthermore,
the
court
found
that
the
attorneys
had
unreasonably
multiplied
the
proceedings
in
violation
of
Rule
11
by
filing
the
complaint
in
April
and
then
waiting
until
June,
just
four
months
before
the
primary,
to
seek
a
preliminary
injunction.
Citing
as
“proof
of
concept”
the
notorious
Maricopa
County
“audit”
performed
by
the
Cyber
Ninjas
—
which
took
six
months
—
didn’t
help
matters
either.
Almost
immediately,
Dershowitz
started
howling
that
he
couldn’t
be
sanctioned
because
he’d
only
signed
up
to
be
“of
counsel”
on
the
“constitutional
issues”
posed
by
this
fakakta
case,
and
anyway
…
he’s
old.
In
fact,
he
was
sometimes
“of
counsel,”
and
sometimes
just
“counsel”
—
not
that
it
makes
any
difference.
Dershowitz
demanded
and
got(!)
a
show
cause
hearing
last
week
on
his
request
to
be
exempted
from
the
sanctions
order.
And
then
when
that
was
over,
he
submitted
the
above-quoted
“supplement.”
Not
because
he’d
discovered
some
intervening
authority
or
ruling,
but
because
he
had
some
more
words
to
whine
at
Judge
Tuchi.
First,
he
blamed
the
clerks
at
the
courthouse
for
forcing
him
to
apply
for
pro
hac
vice
admission
if
he
wanted
to
sign
onto
the
pleadings.
“Because
the
clerk’s
office
specifically
accepted
the
‘of
counsel’
designation
and
demanded
the
pro
hac
vice
admission,
Dershowitz
reasonably
believed
his
usual
use
of
this
term
to
convey
his
limited
role,
was
at
least
consistent
with
the
clerk’s
acceptance
of
that
specific
designation,
as
distinct
from
requiring
his
appearance
as
‘counsel,’
which
term
connoted
to
him
a
full
responsibility
for
the
pleadings
as
a
whole
under
Rule
11,”
he
huffed,
adding
that,
“in
fairness,
his
“of
counsel”
filing
should
have
been
rejected
outright,
if
there
is
no
such
designation
that
is
acceptable.”
It’s
a
bold
strategy,
Cotton.
He
then
turned
to
the
“law
review
question,”
attaching
a
survey he
intends
to
distribute
to
his
fellow
eminences
grise,
on
what
a
retired
professor
should
do
when
asked
to
put
his
name
on
a
filing
which
he
has
neither
the
time
nor
the
inclination
to
verify.
Attorneys
for
Maricopa
County
responded
that
that’s
not
what
a
supplement
is:
Here,
Dershowitz
has
found
no
new
authority.
Rather,
he
improperly
uses
his
Supplement
to
announce
that,
in
fact,
there
is
no
new
authority
to
be
found,
but
he
wants
the
Court
to
give
him
time
to
create
some.
Specifically,
Dershowitz
wants
to
write
a
law
review
article,
which
presumably
will
support
Dershowitz’s
position
that
he
is
somehow
exempt
from
the
ethical
rules
that
apply
to
all
attorneys
who
sign
filings
made
to
a
court.
Dershowitz
will
then
presumably
cite
his
law
review
article
to
this
Court
to
argue
that
he
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
signing
on
to
a
Complaint
and
Motion
for
Preliminary
Injunction
(“MPI”)
that
this
Court
found
“made
false,
misleading,
and
unsupported
factual
assertions[,]”
with
“claims
for
relief
did
not
have
an
adequate
factual
or
legal
basis
grounded
in
a
reasonable
pre-filing
inquiry,”
in
violation
of
Rule
11
and
28
U.S.C.
§
1927.
Dershowitz
will
then
likely
argue
that
Rule
11
does
not
apply
to
him,
despite
the
fact
that
Rule
11
on
its
face
applies
to
every
attorney
who
signs
a
filing
made
to
a
federal
court
(as
Dershowitz
did
here).
The
county
goes
on
to
note
that
Dersh
could
have
filed
an
amicus
brief,
or
acted
as
a
consultant
for
the
plaintiffs.
And
in
fact,
we
know
he
understands
this,
because
the
professor
declined
to
put
his
name
on
the
RICO
LOLsuit
Mike
Lindell
filed
in
Minnesota
against
Dominion
Voting
Systems
in
response
to
the
company’s
defamation
suit
against
him
in
federal
court
in
DC.
Dersh
opted
to
simply
“consult”
on
that
little
field
trip.
Because
he
was
willing
to
tell
Newsweek, “Remember
too
that
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
only
give
Lindell
the
right
to
express
his
views.
It
gives
50
million
people
the
right
to
hear
his
views.”
But
he
wasn’t
going
to
actually
say
it
in
a
federal
filing,
because,
Oh,
come
on.
Next
he’ll
be
whining
that
it’s
not
his
fault,
he
just
fell
in
with
a
bad
crowd.
Which
he
did,
BUT
STILL.
Lake
v.
Fontes
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast.