In a 17-page legal brief, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) asked a federal judge to make former President Donald Trump “personally” pay the legal fees associated with his “audacious” attempts to undermine the 2020 election results, Law&Crime reports.
“More than eight months ago, former President Trump filed this lawsuit in an audacious attempt to overrule the will of the voters by fiat,” the governor’s attorney Jeffrey A. Mandell wrote in the brief. “He sought unprecedented relief, and his team pressed the case in a slapdash manner incommensurate with the gravity of the subject matter. Now, Trump recasts the litigation in a sepia tone, glossing over flaws with conclusory exculpations and dismissing criticism as ‘Monday morning quarterbacking.’”
“Trump provides no legitimate defense of litigation conduct that went beyond mere procedural missteps, constituting a deliberate abuse of the judicial process and attempt to overturn the votes of 3.3 million Wisconsinites,” the brief continued.
Evers’ request comes just days after a harsh sanctions ruling put the law licenses of nine lawyers in jeopardy — the so-called “Kraken” lawyers, whose efforts to overturn the election’s results in four states, including Wisconsin, were rejected by every court.
“Recent sanctions decisions in other post-election litigation support the propriety of sanctions here,” the governor’s brief states. “Federal trial courts in Michigan and Colorado awarded fees under both 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and inherent authority in other baseless post-election cases.”
“The Michigan and Colorado decisions cited several key considerations also present here,” the brief continues. “There, as here, the litigation was ‘not a normal case in any sense,’ as its purpose was ‘questioning the validity of a Presidential election, and the fairness of the basic mechanisms of American democracy.’”
Evers demanded that Trump “personally” pay a price for his election conspiracy theories.
“The Michigan and Colorado decisions cited several key considerations also present here. There, as here, the litigation was ‘not a normal case in any sense,’ as its purpose was ‘questioning the validity of a Presidential election, and the fairness of the basic mechanisms of American democracy.’”