Alli McCracken
LightNews LightNews
allimccracken.bsky.social
Alli McCracken
@allimccracken.bsky.social
55 followers 11 following 0 posts
Angry feminist
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Alli McCracken
theglipper.bsky.social
Well this is quite a thing I just had to file in response to a motion filed by the pro se plaintiff suing my clients for defamation.
On June 2, 2022, Allison McCracken left her then-husband Raed Jarrar, a high-profile author and human-rights advocate. A few months later, Jarrar wrote and signed a letter not only admitting to cheating on her and manipulating her emotionally, but also claiming to be “deeply sorry about the physical abuse that I inflicted on you meanwhile in April and May.” He added, “I look at my hands and think about how I pushed, slapped, choked, and hit you.” McCracken and three of her friends—including, Gabriella Smith, also an advocate for human rights in the Middle East—decided to tell their advocacy community about Jarrar’s abuse. Jarrar then sued them for defamation—on the one-year anniversary of McCracken’s having left him. But there is a more serious problem: Jarrar populates his motion with fabricated case quotations, fabricate case analysis, and even fabricated case citations. In addition to inventing scores of legal citations, he makes a series of outright false statements about the trial recordfalsely claiming that seven points raised in appellants’ opening brief were omitted from their briefing in the trial court. And after all these fabrications and falsehoods, Jarrar somehow requests sanctions against appellants—ironically invoking the “integrity of the judicial process,” and fabricating one last judicial quotation in support. Enough is enough. The Court should deny Jarrar’s motion, then order him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for (1) fabricating numerous legal citations and quotations, and (2) making flagrantly false statements about the contents of the record. The fabrications begin with the first citation in Jarrar’s motion. On page 8 of his motion, Jarrar fabricates a quote, which he attributes to a case, Johnson v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc., 841 A.2d 1249 (D.C. 2004), addressing an unrelated topic. He also fabricates the name and citation of a case purportedly quoted by the original fabricated quote. [chart itemizing first set of fabricated quotes/cites] [chart itemizing yet more fabricated quotes/cites] followed by the following paragraphs: After all that, [he] then demands sanctions—which he says are necessary to “protect the integrity of the judicial process” and “deter future abusive litigation conduct.” Mot. 23, 24. And even when claiming to protect the integrity of the judicial process, Jarrar fabricates one more case quotation. He writes, “An appeal is considered frivolous if it is ‘not grounded in law and fact.’ Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824 (1977).” That quote does not appear in Bounds. Neither does the phrase “law and fact.” Under Rule 38, the Court may sanction a party who “files a petition or motion that is frivolous or interposed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay.” [continues]
July 6, 2024 at 4:19 AM