L. Lin Wood

GA Bar #774588

E-mail L. L. Lin Wood, P.C.

Voter suppression lawsuits L. Lin Wood worked on

Name Filed On Court Finalized Result
Wood v. Raffensperger III (Runoff) 12/18/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Bowyer v. Ducey (Certification) 12/02/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Certification) 12/01/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Pearson v. Kemp (Certification) 11/25/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
King v. Whitmer (Certification) 11/25/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Wood v. Raffensperger I (Electors) 11/13/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost

People are saying

Remark: Out of state attorneys Brandon Johnson and Emily Johnson terminated as counsel of record for noncompliance with admission procedures; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) - Court Docket

"I am revoking my order granting Lin Wood, Esquire the privilege of representing the Plaintiff [Carter Page] in this case." - Judge Craig A Karsnitz

"The conduct of Mr. Wood, albeit not in my jurisdiction, exhibited a toxic stew of mendacity, prevarication and surprising incompetence. 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 A Karsnitz

"Failure to certify a complaint for injunction or even serve the Defendants are not proof reading errors. The Complaint would not survive a law school civil procedure class." - Judge Craig A Karsnitz

"I am also troubled that an error-ridden affidavit of an expert witness would be filed in support of Mr. Wood's case. An attorney as experienced as Mr. Wood knows expert affidavits must be reviewed in detail to ensure accuracy before filing, Failure to do so is either mendacious or incompetent." - Judge Craig A Karsnitz

"As an attorney, Mr. Wood has an obligation, whether on his own or for clients, to file only cases which have a good faith basis in fact or law. The Court's finding in Georgia otherwise indicates that the Georgia case was textbook frivolous litigation." - Judge Craig A Karsnitz

"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election. The Court is left with no alternative but to dismiss this matter in its entirety." - Judge Diane J. Humetewa

"The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections." - Judge Diane J. Humetewa

"When contesting an election, any delay is prejudicial, but waiting until a month after Election Day and two days after certification of the election is inexcusable." - Judge Diane J. Humetewa

"By any measure, the relief Plaintiffs seek is extraordinary. If granted, millions of Arizonans who exercised their individual right to vote in the 2020 General Election would be utterly disenfranchised. Such a request should then be accompanied by clear and conclusive facts . . .. Yet the Complaint’s allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence, and Plaintiffs’ invocation of this Court’s limited jurisdiction is severely strained." - Judge Diane J. Humetewa

"And the plaintiff seems to have made up the 'quote' in his brief that purports to be from [a Wisconsin case]. . . . The court has read [the Wisconsin case] . . . three times and cannot find these words [from plaintiff's quote]." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"The plaintiff wants Donald J. Trump to be certified as the winner of the Wisconsin election as a result of the plaintiff’s vote. But what he asks is for Donald J. Trump to be certified the winner as a result of judicial fiat." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"The court is stymied by the plaintiff's assertion that his interests and injury are identical to that of President Trump . . . If his interest is solely in getting President Trump re-elected, as opposed to having his vote be counted as part of a valid election process, the court is aware of no constitutional provision that gives him the right to have his candidate of choice declared the victor." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"Plaintiffs . . . [bring] forth claims of widespread voter irregularities and fraud in the processing and tabulation of votes and absentee ballots. They seek relief that is stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach. If granted, the relief would disenfranchise the vote of more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise a voice, participated in the 2020 General Election. The Court declines to grant Plaintiffs this relief." - Judge Linda V. Parker

"This case represents well the phrase: 'this ship has sailed.' The time has past to provide most of the relief Plaintiffs request in their Amended Complaint; the remaining relief is beyond the power of any court. For those reasons, this matter is moot." - Judge Linda V. Parker

"Plaintiffs could have lodged their constitutional challenges much sooner than they did, and certainly not three weeks after Election Day and one week after certification of almost three million votes. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' delay results in their claims being barred by laches." - Judge Linda V. Parker

"[T]he closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that physical ballots were altered . . . is [a statement in an affidavit]: 'I believe some of these workers were changing votes that had been cast for Donald Trump and other Republican candidates.' . . . But of course, 'a belief is not evidence' and falls far short of what is required to obtain any relief, much less the extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request." - Judge Linda V. Parker

"The closest Plaintiffs get to alleging that election machines and software changed votes for President Trump to Vice President Biden in Wayne County is an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible." - Judge Linda V. Parker

". . . Plaintiffs fail to show that a favorable decision from the Court would redress their alleged injury. Moreover, granting Plaintiffs' injunctive relief would greatly harm the public interest. . . . 'Moreover, it would disenfranchise millions of Michigan voters in favor of the preferences of a handful of people who are disappointed with the official results.'" - Judge Linda V. Parker

"[T]he burden is on the Plaintiffs, and the relief that they seek is extraordinary. And although they make allegations of tremendous worldwide improprieties regarding the Dominion voting machines, those allegations are supported by precious little proof." - Judge Timothy C. Batten

"Wood’s arguments reflect a basic misunderstanding of what mootness is. He argues that the certification does not moot anything 'because this litigation is ongoing' and he remains injured. But mootness concerns the availability of relief, not the existence of a lawsuit or an injury." - Chief Judge William Pryor

"In this case, the district court issued an emergency temporary restraining order at the plaintiffs’ request, worked at a breakneck pace to provide them an opportunity for broader relief, and was ready to enter an appealable order on the merits of their claims immediately after its expedited hearing on December 4, 2020. But the plaintiffs would not take the district court’s 'yes' for an answer. They appealed instead. And, because they appealed, the evidentiary hearing has been stayed and the case considerably delayed. For our part, the law requires that we dismiss the appeal and return the case to the district court for further proceedings" - Judge Andrew L. Brasher

"[Regarding Plaintiff's motion] There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning's motion, there was no affidavit filed with the motion, the complaint is not verified and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should be required." - Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

"Wood seeks an extraordinary remedy: to prevent Georgia's certification of the votes cast in the General Election, after millions of people had lawfully cast their ballots. To interfere with the result of an election that has already concluded would be unprecedented and harm the public in countless ways." - Judge Steven D. Grimberg

"Wood presents no authority, and the Court finds none, providing for a right to unrestrained observation or monitoring of vote counting, recounting, or auditing." - Judge Steven D. Grimberg

". . . [R]ather than changing the rules on the eve of an election, [Wood] wants the rules for the already concluded election declared unconstitutional and over one million absentee ballots called into question. Beyond merely causing confusion, Wood's requested relief could disenfranchise a substantial portion of the electorate and erode the public's confidence in the electoral process." - Judge Steven D. Grimberg

". . . [T]he Court notes the futility of Wood's standing argument is particularly evident in that his sole relied-on authority -- [1993 11th Circuit case] -- is no longer good law." - Judge Steven D. Grimberg

". . . Wood believes he suffered a[n] . . . injury because his preferred candidates -- to whom he has contributed money -- did not prevail in the General Election. This argument has been squarely rejected by the Eleventh Circuit." - Judge Steven D. Grimberg