Beyond The Horizon

Stacey Plaskett And Her Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions (Part 2) (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.

Purpose:

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 7:43)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 13m
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. Maybe you can 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 U.S. 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 a non-withdrawable racing site credit that expires seven days after issuance. Max refund $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 getting right back to Stacey Plaskett and her emotion for Rule 11 sanctions against the Epstein survivors. The legal argument. Rule 11 exists to curb abuses in the legal system and to deter baseless filings. Busguides, Inc. vs. Chromatic, Commercial Enterprises, Inc. 498 U.S. 533, 534, 1991. It imposes an affirmative duty on each attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the viability of a pleading before it signed. Dimitri Enterprises, Inc. vs. Spa Insurance Agency, LLC. Number 21-1722-CV-2022-WL-52-37-811-A2. Second Circuit, October 6, 2022. By signing a pleading, Council certifies that the pleading is well grounded in the fact and law and is not bought for an improper purpose. Busguides, Inc. vs. Chromatic, Commercial Enterprises, Inc. 498 U.S. 533, 542, 1991. In deciding whether the signer of a pleading, motion, or other paper is crossed the line between zealous advocacy and plain petafogary, the court applies an objective standard of reasonableness. Rule 11 provides for sanctions where an action is bought for an improper purpose, Rule 11-B1, raises claims that are not warranted by existing law or do not constitute a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, reversing, or establishing law, Rule 11-B2. And for making factual contentions without evidentiary support, Rule 11-B3. As concerns, the SAC Council violates all three. Although some subsections, a Rule 11, also provide for sanctions against a party, the Congresswoman is not pursuing sanctions against plaintiffs at this time. A review of the SAC strongly suggests that misrepresentations in the SAC are counsel-driven and counsel-created. As of this filing, the Congresswoman seeks sanctions only against plaintiffs' counsel. A. Council violated Rule 11-B3 by misrepresenting facts and making inflammatory claims not grounded in fact. Misrepresenting facts in a pleading violates Rule 11, part v. Kim 91, F, 4th, 6th, 10, 5, 14, and 15, 2nd Circuit 2024. A lawyer also violates Rule 11 by filing a complaint containing vague and implausible allegations, which he or she had to have known were based on no more than speculation. Goldman v. Barrett, 15, CIV-9223, PGG 2019, WL-4572725, at 5, SDNY, 20, 2019. Council may not manufacture allegations to put them in a public court filing without any basis in fact. O'Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems Inc. 552, F.SUPP 3D, 1168, 1201, Colorado 2021. Yet this is what happened here. Facts were misstated to the point of falsehood. Other claims were simply fabricated with no basis. The SAC repeatedly alleges that Congresswoman Plaskit knew about Epstein's sex trafficking operation and expressly agreed to join and extend the operation. Council, even alleges that Congresswoman Plaskit, acted to facilitate Epstein's access to the plaintiffs and other victims. Plaskit entered into an agreement with Epstein to facilitate the sex trafficking venture to ensure Epstein's clients, co-conspirators, and co-defendants had access to victims and the plaintiffs. The SAC repeatedly alleges that Congresswoman abused her office to aid Epstein in exchange for money and influence, overtly accusing her of accepting bribes. Council included no facts to support these outrageous claims because they do not exist. No filing, deposition, news article, or any other source of information supports any of these claims. There's no evidence in the public record or anywhere else that Congresswoman Plaskit knew anything about Epstein's sex trafficking, much less he asked her to do or that she did anything and furtherance of it. She asked for money from him after he was already convicted. No, did he continue abusing girls this whole entire time? Oh, he did, right? So again, save the platitudes, please. The federal courts cannot tolerate complaints grounded solely in metaphysical inferences, nor those filed without an informed basis, for the allegation. Murphy versus Cuomo, 913F.SUPP, 671, 683, NDNY, 1996. Quoting Keegan Management Company, 154FRD, 237, 242, Northern District of California, 1996. Awarding Rule 11 Sanctions, C. Also, Goldman versus Barrett, 825, F. Second Circuit, 2020. Affirming Rule 11 Sanctions and noting, speculation that conversations may have taken place provides no support for allegations as to the content of those conversations. Council was aware the first demanded complaint was light on facts, especially after Congresswoman Plaskit's counsel alerted them to their obligations under Rule 11. Undaunted by the lack of actual facts, Council exaggerated or outright misrepresented what little information they were able to glean from the JP Morgan filing. For example, Paragraph 164 and 165 make the repeated claims. 164, the ultimate decision to provide such tax breaks was made by the USVI governor. Plaskit was the attorney on the EDC responsible for, upon information and belief, recommending that the EDC provides these benefits to Epstein and his company's adventure. 165, these tax breaks amounted to 300 million indirect benefits to Epstein and his company's inventions. C. Also, SAC, GC for EDC $300 million in tax breaks, despite being a sex offender. Defendants, Dacey Plaskit was the attorney for the USVI's EDC when it approved over 300 million in tax breaks for Epstein's companies. This is not true, as is clear from a five-minute Google search. Epstein's companies received 300 million in tax incentives over 20 years, beginning in 1999. Jeffrey Epstein got 300 million tax breaks, paid US Virgin Islands police, JP Morgan says, Reuters, June 20, 2023. Epstein's companies were first approved for 10 years of tax incentives starting in 1999. They were renewed for five-year term, apparently retroactively, in 2012. They were renewed again in 2013 after Congresswoman Plaskit had left the VA to, for another 10-year term. Epstein's companies received the vast bulk of the tax incentives under the 1999 approval. This was not a product of shoddy drafting, it's an outright misrepresentation. The cornerstone of the SAC is the claim that the Congresswoman secured 300 million in tax incentives for Epstein to facilitate his sex trafficking, in exchange for money, influence, and a job. All information in the public record establishes that this claim is affirmatively and provably false. Equally false is the claim that the Congresswoman recommended tax incentives for Epstein's companies. As the VA to statute set out, the General Counsel does not make recommendations to the Governor. The Board of the EDC makes recommendations to the Governor in a written report after the EDC conducts an investigation and holds a public hearing. The Chairman of the Board of the EDC makes those recommendations to the Governor upon a hearing with the Board members, not the General Counsel. You've heard of Pizza Hut's $7 deal lovers menu, right? All these delicious items for only $7 each when you buy two or more, but something's off. I mean, pizzas, melts, boneless wings, bacon, cheddar, cheese sticks, oven, big pastas, cinnabon mini rolls, and that's not even the whole menu. I'll keep eating or digging. You should too. Check out the $7 deal lovers menu at your local Pizza Hut. Product availability prices and participation may vary. Additional charges and exclusions may apply. Wings included are eight-count boneless. What if you could have a career where the opportunities are as vast as our nation, where it's not about mission statements, but a shared mission? At U.S. Customs and Border Protection, we go beyond to protect more than borders, from ship to shore, air to ground, cities to local communities. CBP agents and officers are keeping people safe. Join U.S. Customs and Border Protection and go beyond for something far greater than yourself. Learn more at CBP.gov/careers. Prefacing the claim with a blanket on information and belief does not absolve counsel from its obligation, not to assert baseless, speculative, or untrue facts. Fleming v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, #21-CV-1112-BMC, 2021-WL, 87, 85, 58, at 2, EDNY, March 9, 2021. Counsel was aware of these facts. They were addressed in both the March 19, 2024 letter and the first motion to dismiss. The SAC also makes the claim that Congresswoman Plaskit received regular and routine payments from Epstein disguised as campaign contributions. There were no regular payments. The SAC identifies two campaign contributions in 2016, one for the primary and one for the general, and one campaign contribution in 2018. To say these are regular and routine payments is, at best, a wild exaggeration. Nor did that money go to the Congresswoman. It went to her campaign. Donations to which, or public record, and accessible on the website of the Federal Election Commission, there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that Epstein hosted a fundraiser for her because he did not. Lawyers may file documents containing inflammatory claims that would be considered the "famatory" in any other context without fear of legal retribution. O'Rourke vs. Dominion Voting Systems Incorporated, 552, F.SUPP3D at 1204-05. But along with a law license and the associated privilege to make arguably the "famatory allegations" in judicial proceedings comes the sworn obligation of every lawyer, as an officer of the court, and under Rule 11, not to abuse that privilege by making factual allegations without first conducting a reasonable inquiry into the validity of those allegations. The false allegations in the SAC are inflammatory and outrageous. Under any circumstances, they would likely be subject to a defamation suit. The misconduct permeates the SAC. Congresswoman Plaskit has dedicated almost the entirety of her professional life to public service. The irresponsible and scurrilous allegations in the SAC, obviously made it bad faith, are beyond the pale. Council had no basis to include her, in this case solely because she worked for a quasi-government organization that gave lawful tax breaks to Epstein years before his sex trafficking was revealed. Or because she received campaign donations, as did many other high-profile politicians. The filing of the SAC, even after being advised of the violation from the First Amendment complaint, exasperated the misconduct and is the pinnacle of bad faith. Council may not damage and defame the life and reputation of another person with fabrication and deception in search of a quick settlement and publicity. Council violated Rule 11b-3 in every possible measure. Significant sanctions are appropriate. Alright, we're going to wrap up this episode right here, and in the next episode we're going to pick up with B. Council violated Rule 11b-2 by asserting frivolous and baseless legal claims. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It's time for today's Lucky Land horoscope with Victoria Cash. Life's gotten mundane, so shake up the daily routine and be adventurous with a trip to Lucky Land. You know what they say. Your chance to win starts with a spin, so go to luckylandslots.com to play over 100 social casino style games for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Get Lucky Today! At luckylandslots.com Available to players in the U.S. excluding Washington and Michigan. No purchase necessary. VGW Group, voirper, prohibited by law.