Alejandro Brito

It was bad faith litigation, that they used and abused the federal court to try to give a thin veneer of legitimacy to a settlement that's no settlement at all.

And using her inherent authority and power under a rule we call Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Williams sanctioned the lawyers for Donald Trump, a guy named Alejandro Brito, referring him to the Florida Bar, w- will probably do nothing.

Uh, Daniel Z. Epstein, a lawyer who doesn't normally practice in Miami and, and she barred him from practicing in the Southern District of Florida for the next year.

And she also gagged- Anybody in the Department of Justice referring to whatever they did to create the weaponization fund as a settlement.

And as a result, she sanctioned the lawyers.

The attorney, Alejandro Brito, was referred to the Florida Bar for discipline.

Attorney Daniel Epstein, his colleague, was barred for a year from applying to practice law in the Southern District of Florida, him being an out-of-state attorney.

And she also r- put a gag order and a restriction on everybody in the Department of Justice, including Todd Blanche, from referring to whatever that resolution or that phony settlement was between Donald Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service that he manipulated to refer to that as a settlement agreement or the evidence of a settlement, finding it could not have been a settlement because the parties were not adversarial.

They were in, they were in cahoots.

You have to be candid to the tribunal.

And although she quotes from a case of Gentile versus the State Bar of Nevada, "And although litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may be subordinated or subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting.

It is unquestionable that whatever right to free speech an attorney has is extremely circumscribed in a judicial setting." She continues, Judge, Judge Williams, "Although the parties to rely on the settlement agreement or allowing the parties to rely on the settlement agreement as evidence of a settlement in this matter would perpetuate the false narrative that the agreement resolved a controversy between adversarial litigants in this court.