Reposted by @vampcristy76.bsky.social
Fed. judge has sanctioned an AUSA who accused an immigration lawyer of obstructing a deportation without any evidence.
Orders attorney to take two hours of CLE on "special role" of U.S. Atty's and the need for evidence in support of factual assertions.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![This is not, as AUSA Chupp argues, an instance of “weak” evidence; it is an instance of no evidence. (Doc. 26 at 6). While AUSA Chupp may have desired to “preserve an argument based on an inference,” that inference was wholly unreasonable, unsupported by the evidence, and antithetical to the ethical rules that guide attorney conduct. That AUSA Chupp’s subsequent “withdrawal” of the accusation would have been “curative” had Petitioner brought a Rule 11 Motion (rather than the Court sua sponte) does not excuse his Rule 11 obligations here. In his April 4, 2026 Sur-Response, AUSA Chupp “concede[d] that no obstruction took place in December” not because of any “new](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreidqznirrd6vo3nsc24dm5jaieexvtucbx7sxt5rojrfts3tvs646e)
