Prolific Use of Standing Dismissals, Rule 11 Sanctions Threats, and Attorney Discipline to Deter Election Integrity Litigation (MI)

[Established Fact – As to procedural dismissal rates, Clare Locke letters, anti-analysis clause, and Bailey dismissal basis] The Michigan source record, corroborated by the national elections litigation analysis in the project files, establishes that the characterization of all Michigan post-2020 election cases as having been dismissed “for lack of evidence” is factually inaccurate. Of the cases analyzed nationally, 31% were dismissed on procedural standing grounds, not on the merits. More than 30 cease-and-desist letters from Clare Locke LLP on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems were sent to Michigan citizens publicly raising election integrity concerns – targeting individuals rather than media organizations. The Dominion software license contract (#071B7700117) contained an anti-analysis clause used to resist forensic examination in litigation. Attorneys who filed election integrity cases in Michigan, including Matthew DePerno in Bailey v. Antrim County, were threatened with disbarment. Most significantly, in Bailey v. Antrim County, Judge Kevin Elsenheimer was compelled to dismiss the case not because he found no irregularities, but because all requested remedies had been satisfied – a dispositive distinction from a merits finding. Judge Elsenheimer expressly stated on the record that dismissal was not based on a finding that there were no election issues. The systematic use of financial litigation threats (sanctions, cease-and-desist letters, attorney discipline referrals) as instruments to prevent merits adjudication of election integrity claims represents a pattern of judicially adjacent financial coercion that, if coordinated with state officials, implicates 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (obstruction of judicial proceedings) and potentially 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of rights under color of law).