Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ex-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates' memorandum on the unconstitutional Executive Order
Link to tweet
/photo/1
I finally found this by reading Charles Pierce at esquire.com and stumbling onto it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1281 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ex-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates' memorandum on the unconstitutional Executive Order (Original Post)
steve2470
Jan 2017
OP
Does Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to US attorneys
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jan 2017
#1
On MSNBC this morning, Ari Melber said that the E.O. was "lawful", and then he went on to defend
BlueCaliDem
Jan 2017
#2
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,827 posts)1. Does Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to US attorneys
representing the government?
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Lawyers who violate Rule 11 can end up having to pay the apposing parties' attorneys' fees or other sanctions. So I've been wondering whether the U.S. Attorney's office might be violating Rule 11 by continuing to argue in favor of the travel ban order even though four federal judges have already upheld preliminary injunctions (which means there is a probability of success on the merits). But a represented party is exempt from sanctions for violating (2)(b). So if the party is the executive branch of the government but the lawyer is the US Attorney's office, which is also part of the government, would they be off the hook?
Any other lawyers want to weigh in on this?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)2. On MSNBC this morning, Ari Melber said that the E.O. was "lawful", and then he went on to defend
it.
I thought I was listening to a RWer. Is he a closeted RWer?