Beyond The Horizon
Stacey Plaskett And Her Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions (Part 3) (7/15/24)
A motion for Rule 11 sanctions is a legal procedure in the United States federal courts where a party requests the court to impose penalties on another party or their attorney for filing frivolous, legally baseless, or improper pleadings and motions. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that attorneys or unrepresented parties ensure that their submissions are well-grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not filed for any improper purpose such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.Key Elements of Rule 11 Sanctions:
- Certification Requirement: When an attorney or party submits a document to the court, they are certifying that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, the document is not being presented for any improper purpose, the claims or defenses are warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and the factual contentions have evidentiary support (Justice) (Justice).
- Grounds for Sanctions: Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed if a filing:
- Is submitted for an improper purpose.
- Contains claims, defenses, or other legal contentions that are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law.
- Contains factual contentions that lack evidentiary support or are unlikely to have evidentiary support after further investigation.
- Contains denials of factual contentions that are not warranted on the evidence
- Procedure: A motion for Rule 11 sanctions must be made separately from other motions and must describe the specific conduct alleged to violate Rule 11. The motion must be served on the offending party, who then has 21 days to withdraw or correct the offending submission. If the party does not take appropriate corrective action, the motion can then be filed with the court.
- Sanctions: Sanctions under Rule 11 can include non-monetary directives, penalties payable to the court, and payment of the movant's attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation. The aim of the sanctions is to deter future misconduct rather than to compensate the wronged party.
The primary purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and to streamline the administration and procedure of federal courts by reducing frivolous claims. It ensures the integrity of the legal process by holding parties and their attorneys accountable for their submissions.
(commercial at 9:57)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
- Duration:
- 18m
- Broadcast on:
- 15 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp, paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services. This summer, saddle up with the only sports book where you can bet on horse racing. FanDuel! Right now, new customers can get a no-sweat first bet up to $500. Just download the app or go to fanduel.com/horses to score your no-sweat bet up to $500. 21+ in present in Colorado. Offer valid on first real money wager of $5 or more. Verify an FD Racing account required. Bonus issued in non-withdrawable racing site credit that expires seven days after issuance. Max refunded $500. Restrictions apply. See terms at racing.fanduel.com, gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to write back to Stacey Plaskett and her motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the legal counsel of the survivors. B. Council violated Rule 11B, too, by asserting frivolous and baseless legal claims. A legal claim is frivolous where it's not warranted by existing law, or by a non-friveless argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. Part 91, F.4, at 614. All five causes of action in the SAC are frivolous. 1. The negligence claim, count 5, is objectively nonsensical and lacks any basis of law or fact. Negligence derived from centuries of common law arises where there is one illegal duty of care to the plaintiff to a breach of that duty of care by the defendant, three constituting the factual or legal cause of four damages to the plaintiff. Robbins vs. Port of Sale Incorporated, #st-12-CV-90/2018-WL5024920@4. Virgin Island Superior Court, October 10, 2018. There's no basis to infer a legal duty of care owed by Congresswoman Plaskett to any of the plaintiffs or any potential class members under any reading of the SAC. She had no responsibility as a law enforcement officer, no supervisory responsibility over any law enforcement, and no role directly in the government of the USVI. The claims of supervisory authority are also objectively absurd, as has been pointed out to counsel in both the March 19, 2024 letter and the first motion to dismiss, among other areas. The SAC alleges failures to supervise federal agents, United States Customs Officers, the United States Coast Guard, and air traffic controllers, and privately employed airline baggage handlers, federal officers are under the control of their respective federal agencies, not Congresswoman Plaskett. Only the USVI police are under territorial control, and Congresswoman Plaskett never had supervisory authority over the USVI police. The negligence claim is objectively frivolous. 2. The Civil Rico claims count for or objectively frivolous, as the SAC fails to meet even the basic prerequisites of a Civil Rico claim. A Civil Rico claim has an almost inevitable stigmatizing effect on those named as defendants. Katzmann vs. Victoria's Secret Catalog 167FRD 649-659 SDNY 1996 Figueroa Ruiz vs. Algeria 896F.2D 645-650 for Circuit 1990. Consequently, Rule 11's deterrence value is particularly important in the Rico context. Its clear counsel did not make any attempt to identify and parse the elements of a Rico claim. As the threshold matter, plaintiffs claim only personal injuries. A Rico claim requires an economic injury, as written in the statute. There is no Rico claim for personal injury, US Code 18, Section 1964(c). Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of Section 1962 of this chapter may sue, therefore, RJR Nabisco Inc. vs. Eureka Community 579, US 325-350-2016, noting that the Rico private right of action excludes personal injury claims. Gloss Koonen vs. Alaska 874-F.3D 806-817, 2nd Circuit 2017, noting a plaintiff cannot recover for personal injuries under Rico. 2nd, even the manufactured facts in the SAC do not coalesce into a cognizable Rico claim. As would have been obvious to counsel, had they done even the basic research into Civil Rico, most of the missing elements are the subject of long settled Supreme Court case law, and not even arguably questionable. The alleged enterprise lacks a basic, long recognized structural features necessary to establish a Rico enterprise, Boyle vs. United States, 556-US938-946-2009. A Rico enterprise must have at least three structural features, a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. Penguin Brothers vs. City National Bank, 587-F.APP-X, 663-667, 2nd Circuit 2014, noting participants in a Rico enterprise must have a common purpose and intent. Heinrich vs. Dean, 655-F.SUP-P.3D-184-190, SDNY 2023. Courts in the 2nd Circuit look to the hierarchy, organization, and activities of an association in fact, to determine whether its members function as a unit. The SAC also does not allege an organization distinct from its actors. First Capital Asset Management Inc. vs. Satinwood 385-F.3D-159-173-2nd Circuit 2004. Or the alleged predicate acts, United States vs. Turkey 452-US576-583-1981. He also, Penguin Brothers 587-F.APP-X at 668. Plaintives Complaint gives us no basis for inferring that these two defendants, in isolation, formed an ongoing organization formal or informal, let alone a coherent entity separate and apart from the alleged fraudulent scheme. To the extent the SAC pleads anything substantive, it pleads an operation run by Epstein for Epstein, the further Epstein's goals into which others allegedly contributed for their own purposes. See Penguin Brothers 587-F at 668, finding no enterprise alleged in part because the complaint failed to allege the defendants acted on behalf of the enterprise instead of their own individual self-interest. Council cannot make a plausible claim that Congresswoman Plaskit invested in, maintained an interest in, or participated in any RICO enterprise. The SAC does not identify which RICO subsection, it relies on, problematic in itself, but it must be Section 1962C, as A and B clearly do not apply. See US Code 18, Section 1962A, investing racketeering proceeds into a racketeering enterprise. US Code 18, Section 1962B, acquiring an interest in, or control, of a racketeering enterprise. The latest attempt to implicate that Congresswoman cannot cobble together a remotely plausible claim that Congresswoman Plaskit participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. A basic, long settled element of pleading a claim under Section 1962. Reeves vs. Ernst & Young, 507 US, 170, 185, 1993, United States Fire Insurance Company vs United Limousine Service Inc., 303, F.SUPP 2D432, 451, SDNY 2004, noting a RICO defendant must do more than merely take direction or take action that benefits the enterprise. The SAC fails to plead any predicate acts by the Congresswoman, much less a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of at least two predicate acts in a ten-year period. Satinwood 385F.3D at 178. The SAC fails to plead the elements or even identify the alleged predicate acts at all. See Macon59F.SUPP 3D at 546, noting a party must plead the elements of the predicate acts. At best, the SAC seems to be groping towards a violation of the Federal Bribery Statute US Code 18, Section 201. There is a non-frivolous basis to assert a violation of the Federal Bribery Statute in the SAC, not least because the SAC fails to identify a single actual action taken by Congresswoman Plaskit on behalf of Epstein while she held Federal Office. See Macon vs. Alburger 59F.SUPP 3D 528, 553, Western District of New York 2014, noting that the Federal Bribery Statute requires action by a Federal official. The SAC also fails to allege the required continuity of a pattern of racketeering activity. Satinwood 385F.3D at 180. There can be no open-ended continuity. Epstein is dead and there is no threat of ongoing criminal activity beyond 2019. See DeFalco vs. Bernes 244F.3D 286323 Second Circuit 2001 To establish open-ended continuity, the plaintiff must show that there was a threat of continuing criminal activity beyond the period during which the predicate acts were performed. There is no non-frivolous basis to allege closed-ended continuity, primarily because the SAC fails to allege a series of related predicate acts extending over a substantial period of time, amounting to continued criminal activity. Finally, Rico, conspiracy claim count number 4 is entirely frivolous. The substantive Rico claim is frivolous, so there can be no Rico conspiracy without allegations amounting to a substantive Rico offense. Red Rock sourcing, LLC vs. JGX, LLC No. 21, CIV1054, JPC, 2024, WL124, 3325 at 20, SDNY, March 22nd, 2024. Further, counsel cannot rely on speculative fantasies to allege a non-existent agreement. The SAC contains no substantive allegation, supporting even an inference of an agreement. The claim is frivolous. This summer, saddle up with the only sportsbook where you can bet on horse racing, FanDuel. Right now, new customers can get a no-sweat first bet up to $500. Just download the app or go to fanduel.com/horses to score your no-sweat bet up to $500. 21+ and present in Colorado. Offer valid on first real money wager of $5 or more, verified FD Racing account required, bonus issued and non-withdrawable racing site credit that expires seven days after issuance, max refund $500, restrictions apply. The claim for obstruction of enforcement of the TVPA count three is frivolous because the SAC alleges no action taken to obstruct any enforcement. There can be no obstruction without an enforcement effort to obstruct. See DO1 vs Deutsche Bank, 671 SUPP-3D-387-409 SDNY-2023. Setting the elements of obstruction, the enforcement of the TVPA, as one, knowledge of an effort to enforce the TVPA, and two, an intentional action to obstruct or attempt to obstruct enforcement. United States vs Aguirre, 515 U.S. 593, 599, 1995. Holding that obstruction under U.S. Code 18, Section 1503 requires intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, Arthur Anderson LLP vs United States, 544 U.S. 696-707-2005. Holding that obstruction under U.S. Code 18, Section 1512 requires a showing that the defendant at least foresaw a proceeding. The SAC does not even attempt to allege an effort to impede enforcement of a known effort. The claim is frivolous. 4. The SAC asserts claims for violations of the TVPA and conspiracy to violate the TVPA without factual basis. Counts 1 and 2 purport to allege violations of the TVPA and a conspiracy to violate the TVPA. Council filed these allegations with absolutely no factual basis. The SAC is full of offensive, conclusionary claims that Congresswoman Plaskit knew of Epstein's sex trafficking and agreed to facilitate it. Council had no factual basis to make these claims and no factual basis to allege a violation of the TVPA or conspiracy to violate the TVPA. This is a violation of Rule 11b2 and a dereliction of Council's obligations as a lawyer in frankly common decency. C. Council filed the SAC in bad faith and with an improper purpose in violation of Rule 11b1. The circumstances behind the filing of the SAC strongly imply an improper motive. Council dumped into a public federal court pleading allegations of a regal conspiracy that are utterly unmerited by any evidence. Demonstrating substantial bad faith, O'Rourke vs. Dominion Voting System 552, S.U.P.P. 3D 1168, 1205, Colorado 2021. In Counselor 914, F.2D 505, 519, 4th Circuit 1990, repeated filings, the outrageous nature of the claims made or a signer's experience in a particular area of law under which baseless claims have been made are all appropriate indicators of an improper purpose. The SAC itself is so baseless as to suggest that there is an ulterior motive behind the lawsuit. Omin vs. Share States, Inc. 21-CV 2766, J.S., S.T., 2024, W.L. 195, 6237 at 3, Eastern District of New York, March 21, 2024. Council actually refiled many of the factual misstatements and frivolous legal claims from the first amended complaint. Even after being advised, they were baseless and probably sanctionable. Council went further and added an equally deficient and inflammatory regal allegation, C.L.C.S. Group, LLC vs. Shire, LLC, No. 18, Civ, 2688, AT, 2019, W.L. 123, 48, 48, AT-15, SDNY, March, 2019. These are not errors of an inexperienced attorney. Council here holds themselves out as a very experienced and well regarded, Mr. Mersan advertises himself as one of the top lawyers in New York and the United States. According to the Mersan Law website, Mr. Mersan was named a top 100 lawyer in New York in 2024, was recognized as one of the top 200 lawyers in America by Forbes and was selected by the New York Law Journal, Hall of Fame in 2014. Mr. Mersan appears on at least 39 cases in PACER in this court alone. In this case, however, Mr. Mersan and his colleagues disregarded their obligations as officers of the court. Perhaps they believed, including the congresswoman in their complaint, would garner publicity or that some defendants would put pressure on other defendants to settle quickly. Perhaps they just wish to wound for some unknown insidious purpose. Certainly, the fact that they are using their clients as a conduit in their effort is reprehensible. Congresswoman Plaskett submits that substantial sanctions are warranted. Conclusion. Council made awful claims in the SAC, alleging some of the worst forms of criminality based on nothing but pure invention. It covered the fatal gaps in the SAC with figments of their imagination and took extreme liberties with a few actual facts they appeared to have gleaned from a single source. People simply ignored widely known facts that contravert the allegations in the SAC. Doing so not only damages Congresswoman Plaskett, but damages the plaintiffs, they have an obligation to represent. They filed the second amended complaint with no regard for the damage their action could do or their obligations as officers of the court. It is clear, no reasonable inquiry into either the law or the facts was undertaken. Sanctions are warranted. This was signed by Duane Morris and it was dated July 2nd, 2024. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's extra help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Care is being here when you need us, for open evenings and weekends. Care is helping you save more. Most insurance plans and discount cards are accepted at your local King Super's Pharmacy. Care is saving you time by managing your prescriptions online. You can request free fills, check order status and more. Care is convenience that works for everyone. King Super's a world of care is in store. Services and availability vary by location, age and other restrictions may apply. For coverage, consult your health insurance company, visit the pharmacy or our site for