What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Lin Wood / Questions for the FBG lawyers (1 Viewer)

BobbyLayne

Footballguy
A Maryland judge won’t allow Mr Wood to represent Carter Paige in a defamation suit.

"The conduct of Mr. Wood, albeit not in my jurisdiction, exhibited a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence," Judge Craig Karsnitz wrote.

Karsnitz said that he is required to "ensure that those practicing before me are of sufficient character, and conduct themselves with sufficient civility and truthfulness," particularly when out-of-state counsel is selected. Wood is based in Georgia.

Noting Wood's involvement in the Trump campaign's unsuccessful efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election, the judge wrote that he became concerned after reviewing the decisions made in lawsuits Wood filed in Georgia and Wisconsin courts.

Is this why all the white shoe forms ran away from representing Trump or Trump causes in the 60+ cases they lost about voting irregularities? Please explain in layman terms why it would have been a bad idea to try to promote nefarious claims of voter fraud.

(sorry for not asking earlier, I was on vacation for a few months)

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
I'm admittedly unsure if I'm entirely following you, but generally a lawyer has an ethical obligation not to knowingly bring a frivolous lawsuit/cause of action. While that's a pretty low bar, a judge making such a finding (usually accompanied by a bar complaint) would likely bring a lawyer into hot water with the corresponding bar association and sanctions, including up to disbarment, would be possible. 

ETA: It's also probably just really bad from a PR perspective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A Maryland judge won’t allow Mr Wood to represent Carter Paige in a defamation suit.

"The conduct of Mr. Wood, albeit not in my jurisdiction, exhibited a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence," Judge Craig Karsnitz wrote.

Karsnitz said that he is required to "ensure that those practicing before me are of sufficient character, and conduct themselves with sufficient civility and truthfulness," particularly when out-of-state counsel is selected. Wood is based in Georgia.

Noting Wood's involvement in the Trump campaign's unsuccessful efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election, the judge wrote that he became concerned after reviewing the decisions made in lawsuits Wood filed in Georgia and Wisconsin courts.

Is this why all the white shoe forms ran away from representing Trump or Trump causes in the 60+ cases they lost about voting irregularities? Please explain in layman terms why it would have been a bad idea to try to promote nefarious claims of voter fraud.

(sorry for not asking earlier, I was on vacation for a few months)
Wood went pretty far beyond just representing Trump. Even before he started calling for executions on social media. 
 

I think most white shoe firms already avoided Trump for two main reasons. One, he lied to everyone, including his lawyers; and two, he has a history of not paying his bills. 

 
Wood went pretty far beyond just representing Trump. Even before he started calling for executions on social media. 
 

I think most white shoe firms already avoided Trump for two main reasons. One, he lied to everyone, including his lawyers; and two, he has a history of not paying his bills. 
Yeah the latter would be my biggest concern frankly. No chance me or my firm would take his case without a very sizable retainer that cleared. 

We'd then likely have a meeting to decide whether we even wanted to take it in terms of being publicly associated with him. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was a pretty specific situation.   He wasn't admitted in Maryland, so he was seeking limited admission under pro hac vice rules.  Under those rules, in part because you aren't subject to the discipline rules of the state bar in which the case is being heard, you are supervised by a local attorney who is responsible for your conduct and you are required to comply with all ethical rules of the state.   This gave the Maryland judge wide latitude to deny or revoke his limited admission.   

As far as why other firms refused to take on these frivolous cases, I assume it is because they didn't need the publicity and they may have even respected their obligations under Rule 11 and similar state rules requiring pleadings to be brought in good faith.   Since the campaign itself was paying the bills in most cases, I don't think it was a matter of payment.   Trump was only the named individual in a select few cases, including his attempted intervention in the Supreme Court case.   Most of the others it was the campaign, which has sufficient war chests.  I also don't think it was a matter of Trump lying, since all of those cases would have come down to expert witnesses and Trump's individual testimony about what he thought about the election would have been irrelevant.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
This was a pretty specific situation.   He wasn't admitted in Maryland, so he was seeking limited admission under pro hac vice rules.  Under those rules, in part because you aren't subject to the discipline rules of the state bar in which the case is being heard, you are supervised by a local attorney who is responsible for your conduct and you are required to comply with all ethical rules of the state.   This gave the Maryland judge wide latitude to deny or revoke his limited admission.   

As far as why other firms refused to take on these frivolous cases, I assume it is because they didn't need the publicity and they may have even respected their obligations under Rule 11 and similar state rules requiring pleadings to be brought in good faith.   Since the campaign itself was paying the bills in most cases, I don't think it was a matter of payment.   Trump was only the named individual in a select few cases, including his attempted intervention in the Supreme Court case.   Most of the others it was the campaign, which has sufficient war chests.  I also don't think it was a matter of Trump lying, since all of those cases would have come down to expert witnesses and Trump's individual testimony about what he thought about the election would have been irrelevant.
This is the best answer so far as to why the judge did what he or she did in this situation. 

I interpreted your question to be more so why wouldn't certain firms take his case. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we have a military conflict.... Trump will be making the calls? Is that what I am hearing here?

it is difficult to grasp just how far detached from reality a person would have to be to believe lies this grandiose.
I doubt he actually believes this.  Isn't he just grifting?

 
Or still be in good standing with the bar (assuming he is). 
I saw something in the last week or so, where the state bar of Georgia released some of the claims against him - pretty crazy stuff.

(I think the disciplinary proceeding is still going on)

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
I doubt he actually believes this.  Isn't he just grifting?
Oh yes! It’s a obviously a grift by Wood.

But the members of his audience believe him wholeheartedly. It’s those gullible sycophants that represent the danger brought on by Wood’s outrageous lies.

 
Oh yes! It’s a obviously a grift by Wood.
I would not be so sure.

Plaintiff is involved in a pending case with his former colleagues from L. Lin Wood, P.C. The former colleagues filed a verified complaint, in which they state that: a. Plaintiff began to display “erratic, abusive, and unprofessional behavior.” Plaintiff’s former colleagues averred that Wood was becoming “increasingly...hostile...and threatening

 Plaintiff threatened to beat one of his former law colleagues with a switch until “he couldn’t sit down for 20 ####### years.”

Plaintiff also threatened to “destroy” his former law colleagues and said about one of them specifically, “by the time I am through with [him], he’s going to wish all I had done was #### his wife.”

On a 3.5 hour teleconference, Plaintiff spoke nearly non-stop and offered to fight his former law colleagues to the death.

Plaintiff declared that he was doing God’s will; threatened to bring down the wrath of God; promised that Plaintiffs would be punished “at the discretion of Almighty God”; said “God Almighty told me to get you back to where you belong. Broke and essentially homeless

You all better get on  your knees and pray to Almighty God that He now asks me to show you mercy”; threatened “I will deliver a fiery judgment against you on earth. Who the #### did you think you were dealing with? You were screwing around with me, but I was someone else in disguise. You in fact have been screwing around with God Almighty....” Plaintiff said that he would “make sure that you never practice law again ever if you do not admit your sins, all of them by 10:30 a.m.”

 
Plaintiff voiced repeated concerns about his misconduct being disclosed, as he feared it would interfere with his supposedly imminent receipt of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and appointment as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiff believed his appointment was forthcoming due to a prophesy he heard in a YouTube video and a conspiracy theory that Chief Justice John Roberts would be revealed to be part of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring and was being blackmailed by liberals to rule in their favor

 
Plaintiff voiced repeated concerns about his misconduct being disclosed, as he feared it would interfere with his supposedly imminent receipt of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and appointment as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiff believed his appointment was forthcoming due to a prophesy he heard in a YouTube video and a conspiracy theory that Chief Justice John Roberts would be revealed to be part of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring and was being blackmailed by liberals to rule in their favor
The level of insanity required to trick your brain into believing this.....is what is so hard for me to reconcile that this is anything other than a grift.

I don’t think even our Trumpiest Trumpers in the PSF believe this craziness.

 
I would not be so sure.

Plaintiff is involved in a pending case with his former colleagues from L. Lin Wood, P.C. The former colleagues filed a verified complaint, in which they state that: a. Plaintiff began to display “erratic, abusive, and unprofessional behavior.” Plaintiff’s former colleagues averred that Wood was becoming “increasingly...hostile...and threatening

 Plaintiff threatened to beat one of his former law colleagues with a switch until “he couldn’t sit down for 20 ####### years.”

Plaintiff also threatened to “destroy” his former law colleagues and said about one of them specifically, “by the time I am through with [him], he’s going to wish all I had done was #### his wife.”

On a 3.5 hour teleconference, Plaintiff spoke nearly non-stop and offered to fight his former law colleagues to the death.

Plaintiff declared that he was doing God’s will; threatened to bring down the wrath of God; promised that Plaintiffs would be punished “at the discretion of Almighty God”; said “God Almighty told me to get you back to where you belong. Broke and essentially homeless

You all better get on  your knees and pray to Almighty God that He now asks me to show you mercy”; threatened “I will deliver a fiery judgment against you on earth. Who the #### did you think you were dealing with? You were screwing around with me, but I was someone else in disguise. You in fact have been screwing around with God Almighty....” Plaintiff said that he would “make sure that you never practice law again ever if you do not admit your sins, all of them by 10:30 a.m.”
WTF. I wonder if he is suffering from some mental health issues. 

 
I doubt he actually believes this.  Isn't he just grifting?
Absolutely. He's smirking the smirk of a conman as he's saying all that stuff.

EDIT: Well, Zow's right -- can't rule out mental health.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The level of insanity required to trick your brain into believing this.....is what is so hard for me to reconcile that this is anything other than a grift.

I don’t think even our Trumpiest Trumpers in the PSF believe this craziness.
I disagree. 

 
WTF. I wonder if he is suffering from some mental health issues. 
Maybe he's just setting up a mental illness defense to both the defamation cases and disbarment hearings against him.   "I can't tell what's true, so you can't sue me for defamation for repeating what the voices in my head tell me to say."  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top