Holding L. Lin Wood accountable for a “toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence” in the aftermath of the 2020 election, a Delaware judge ruled that the radical-right lawyer forfeited the right to represent Carter Page in his courtroom.
“What has been shown in court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood’s permission to practice before this Court,” Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz wrote in a passionate 8-page order. “I acknowledge that I preside over a small part of the legal world in a small state. However, we take pride in our bar.”
Before his ouster from the case, Wood had been representing outgoing President Donald Trump’s ex-campaign advisor Carter Page in a defamation suit against Oath, the parent company—the parent company of Yahoo News and the Huffington Post—alleging that their articles “portrayed him as a traitor to America.”
That was before Wood repeatedly sought to invalidate the results of an election, made what were apparently open calls for violence against Vice President Mike Pence, and adopted the militant rhetoric that many linked to the U.S. Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6.
In late December, Judge Karsnitz ordered Wood to explain why his post-election antics did not violate Delaware professional rules, such as filing a suit without a plaintiff’s authorization, submitting a false affidavit, and making a series of gaffes that called his competence into question.
For Karsnitz, that problem has only gotten worse.
“A number of events have occurred since the filing of the rule to show cause,” the judge noted. “I have seen reports of ‘tweets’ attributable to Mr. Wood. At least one tweet called for the arrest and execution of our Vice President. Another alleged claims against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States which are too disgusting and outrageous to repeat. Following on top of these are the events of January 6, 2021 in our nation’s Capitol. No doubt these tweets, and many other things, incited these riots.”
Whether Wood bore responsibility for the bloodshed was outside the realm of Karsnitz’s court.
“I am not here to litigate if Mr. Wood was ultimately the source of the incitement,” he wrote. “I make no finding with regard to this conduct, and it does not form any part of the basis for my ruling. I reaffirm my limited role. I am revoking my order granting Lin Wood, Esquire the privilege of representing [Page] in this case.”
This is a developing story…
Read the ruling below:
[Image via YouTube screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow Law&Crime:
