Mike Lindell's deposition behavior has been submitted to the court for sanctions in Eric Croom v. Mike Lindell. See here all exhibits in one cut. Source: htt...
Mike Lindell’s behavior in deposition has earned him a motion for sanctions. See all of the exhibits in one cut.
He complained the judge wouldn’t rule on his motion to dismiss. The next week the judge denied his motion to dismiss. The sanctions request was filled yesterday, so they haven’t responded yet, but we do know that whatever they send will be taking advantage of the “excess pages” rule that their lawyer was too stupid to abide by when they first submitted their motion to dismiss and got it stricken twice. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63296393/coomer-v-lindell/
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
He complained the judge wouldn’t rule on his motion to dismiss. The next week the judge denied his motion to dismiss. The sanctions request was filled yesterday, so they haven’t responded yet, but we do know that whatever they send will be taking advantage of the “excess pages” rule that their lawyer was too stupid to abide by when they first submitted their motion to dismiss and got it stricken twice. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63296393/coomer-v-lindell/