Exactly. However, it should NOT be reserved for only the worst, most problematic cases. In instances of governmental clown-sh!ttery such as this, and any time a government entity tries to pull crap over on its citizens, the harshest sanctions should be applied, and the other party's position should be granted permanently. That's the only way it will curtail this kind of cr@p.
I've never seen a government defendant sanctioned under Rule 11. Not once. Never heard of it either. "They" thought it was outlandish how a judge in Texas made Obama DOJ lawyers attend ethics classes after he caught them lying to him, repeatedly. But I don't disagree with throwing the book at these people. Under threat of monetary sanctions, non-monetary sanctions such as disbarment from practicing in that district, circuit, whatever. But...taking a few hundred thousand dollars or taxpayer money NYC...they'll laugh as they're all immune. It's some sucker's money. Disbar a bunch of NYC attorneys from practicing in SDNY/EDNY/whatever and you'll have a knee-capped legal department. "Don't eff with this court."
Need to hold these clowns personally liable which isn't possible with government defendants. The entire system needs to be burned down (currently in process but doubt Trump will go after statutory immunity for politicians) and rebuilt because this isn't working. The government can jerk people around like this and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it that will send a message to never do it again or at least "tread lightly."
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Edited by skinnyb82, 02 August 2019 - 05:40 AM.