When the trials were announced on January 31, the attorney general`s office called the prisoners «criminals and thieves.» The authorities had suspended the processes in October 2021 without giving reasons. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court has prohibited us from equating losses on the merits with an objective and unreasonable decision. The court requires a review of the appropriateness of the defendant`s dispute when it is filed. «[T]he moot court must be the continuation of claims that are so unfounded that no reasonable party to the proceeding could reasonably expect to receive favourable remedies.» PRE, 113 S.Ct. um 1929. Conversely, «the existence of a probable reason to initiate legal proceedings precludes a conclusion that a defendant of the cartel has engaged in a sham litigation». The doctrine is most often used to make affidavits designed to avoid summary judgments – affidavits that fabricate questions of fact, regardless of what the witness testified. However, affidavits submitted in support of summary judgment may also be considered. This was the case in Button v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R.
Corp., 963 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2020). Button was fired during a reduction in violence (RIF) and sued her employer for gender discrimination and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. In support of the summary judgment, two members of the employer`s RIF committee submitted affidavits, which Button characterized as deception. An affidavit added reasons for Button`s dismissal that the witness did not mention in his testimony. The other added details that the witness did not remember during his testimony. In rendering summary judgment, the trial court was not satisfied that the issues in the testimony were sufficiently precise and clear to render the affidavits patently contradictory. The Eighth Judicial District upheld the court`s refusal to dismiss the affidavits. Since 1. At least 14 prisoners were convicted of «undermining national integrity» in closed trials at El Chipote prison rather than in public courts, as required by Nicaraguan law.
Each trial lasted only a few hours and resulted in swift sentences and several years in prison. These false defences are generally discouraged and, in some cases, considered void. Tomorrow, Nicaraguan courts are due to hold a show trial of seven government critics and opposition leaders, all arbitrarily detained since June 2021. This is the latest in a series of trials against people who have been imprisoned for months on absurd charges. These trials contribute to President Ortega`s growing record of abuses. The 49th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, held on 28. This is an opportunity to send a strong message to the Ortega-Murillo government that these human rights violations will not be tolerated. Governments should support a strong resolution on Nicaragua calling for the release of all prisoners arbitrarily detained and prosecuted and establishing an independent mechanism to investigate rights violations. Given the lack of judicial independence of Nicaraguan courts, this would give victims the opportunity to be heard by an independent body that could hold the perpetrators accountable.
A trial court may ignore an affidavit against summary judgment if the affidavit creates a «fictitious» question of fact that contradicts the statement of the affidavit. The purpose of this doctrine is to preserve the integrity of summary judgments. See Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986) ([T]he usefulness of summary judgment as a method of sorting out fictitious facts would be greatly compromised if a party could create a question of fact by simply submitting an affidavit contradicting its own prior statement. »). Despite this warning, the lawyers assured the judge that these were not secret transactions and proceeded with the settlement. The judge approved the by-law on these representations.
Later, at the hearing on the plaintiffs` application for a new trial on the summary judgment granted to the hospital, the trial judge discovered the true nature of the agreement, including the confidentiality clause, and ordered a hearing on the issue of sanctions. As the court noted, «the purpose of the agreement, as we understand it, was to inform the trial judge of the hospital`s guilt so that he could use that context to decide whether to reconsider granting summary judgment to the hospital.» After discovering that the show trial was intended to deceive him, the judge ordered sanctions against all lawyers for non-disclosure of the agreement to the court. The judge then fined each lawyer $15,000. The respondents appealed the sanctions order, arguing that they had not violated ethical rules, but the order was upheld on appeal.