BC POLITICS
Saved by @Jacobtldr

Good morning, electoral lunacy followers. Welcome to what I suspect will be the 2020 equivalent of the Orly Taitz litigation: Sidney Powell Sues Everoyen For LAL Of Teh ThInGs

This is the first of what will (hopefully) be a limited number of #Kraken-related threads.

 That said, I doubt the number will be limited. I think Sidney Powell is the Orly Taitz of the Biden Administration.

And I doubt I've acquired enough maturity since my younger birther-watching days to ignore these. So, yes, at least for cases with public dockets, I'm here.
We've got two filings so far - a Michigan one (King v Whitmer) that has been filed, and a Georgia one (Pearson v Kemp) that cannot presently be located on PACER.

This may be because there are parallel Quorts not in the system but maybe it just didn't get filed.
Here's how I'm going to deal with that - I'll start livetweeting King (the filed one) in a little bit, after I do some turkey prep. I'll do that in this thread, but probably even slower and more interrupted than usual - so you might just want to bookmark and come back later.
Tonight, if there's interest, I might be both willing and able to stream a read of the (maybe unfiled) GA case on Twitch tonight.
(Seriously, my choice won't necessarily be based on the majority outcome of the poll - if there's enough interest I'll stream regardless.)
I'll pick up with this shortly. At the start, I'll note that it's not clear from the caption whether she's suing Benson in her capacity as both Sec'y of State and Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers or if Benson and the Board are different entities, because what are Oxford commas?
Be back in a bit - the bird needs attention.
OK - the bird is in and the first family Zoom of the day is concluded, so I can pick back up.

When last we left the heroic #Kraken, we were looking at a cover page that spelled "district" two different ways and sues the Board Ofstate Canvassers. Let's see where we go from here.
(By the way - we've got some in-house social isolation going here, so it's a strange Thanksgiving. So thanks to those who asked, but it's actually pretty easy to do this today.)
Right - so we start by saying that we're definitely pleading fraud, so that will make for some interesting issues when the defendants, if ever properly served, mention Rule 9.
For the nonlawyers - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 says that your complaint needs to meet certain requirements above and beyond what's normally required in a complaint.
Honestly, this first paragraph is distinguishable from something Orly Taitz would have filed only in that the spelling and grammar are marginally better. Right down to the references to eye witnesses and expert witnesses.
So if you see me, in the course of these threads, start referring to "witlesses" and "daffydavits," don't credit me with originality. These are terms used in the birther watching community back in the day.
Based on this footnote, we're gonna be lucky if we only see two Krakenings. Sounds like we could see up to four - and possibly more as desperation mounts.

Oh joy.
And she's reinforcing this as a fraud case in the next paragraph, too, so, yeah, it'll be fun to see her respond to the Rule 9 issue in her response to the inevitable motions to dismiss.
BRB - gonna fire up Westlaw and see if I can figure out what this is about, because based on Cornell LII it's a statutory section that doesn't exist.
OK, I found it. It's 52 USC §20701. I was confused, because Title 50 is "War and National Defense" and only goes up to like §4852.
This footnote is also very much in line with Orly Taitz's filings. This is FN 2. The reader has no idea what "Dominion" is, let alone why they have logs, and the final "incorruptible audit log" thing is also unexplained.

She's assuming that the reader lives on her planet.
Alleging that the state government is engaged in an extensive and deliberate criminal conspiracy will go over well. It's also Taitzian.

Also, I wonder what makes Detroit "especially egregious."
Making it clear that these are definitely frauding and ballot-stuffing claims.

So it looks like they finally found a lawyer unethical enough to sign a pleading with this stuff.
So she's claiming sufficient specificity based on her "testimony incorporated within" - so this could be interesting. By which I mean entertaining.
I think Dominion probably will need to find a way to respond to all this - the nutball right are making them toxic in ways that will undoubtedly harm their business.
For clarity: by "all this" I mean the full set of outrage peddling and scapegoating, not simply this filing.
Wait, the "MichiganBoard of State Canvassers"? I thought she was suing the "Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers."
So we've got a "Redacted Declaration" as Exhibit 1, with no indication that an unredacted version will be forthcoming. That's clearly the sign of a very serious lawyer with great familiarity with law and other lawyerings.
We're also seeing allegations that vote fraud in Michigan in 2020 is connected with a dictator who died in 2013.

I will be *delighted* if defense lawyers snarkily request that the court take judicial notice that Hugo Chavez has been dead for 7 years.
I mean I'm not 100% sure that it's a fact that can be the subject of judicial notice really, but it's also the kind of thing that's so worth a try.
Also, did she spill something on her keyboard that destroyed her space bar? And if so, was it whatever substance she was consuming that fueled this "pleading"?
OK, so now we're quoting from the "DominionWhistleblower Report." Which indicates that the person who drafted the report was a "direct witness."

I'll be right back - I've got to go look at Exhibit 1 and see who this is, because if there's a deposition it's gonna be lit.
https://t.co/LAapX2FEAr
What

the

sweeteverlivingfuck

is this even?????
OhmyGOD

She REDACTED THE DECLARANT'S NAME?????????
I just checked the docket - there's no indication anything was filed under seal. There's no indication there's any intent to file anything under seal.

Her leadoff document, which documents an alleged international conspiracy, doesn't disclose who the affiant IS?
OK. For the nonlawyers, let me explain.

The American justice system is adversarial. That is a fundamental thing. It's like trial by combat but with less blood and more snark.

This means that the opposing party gets to - and this is important - challenge your testimony.
When you put forward a witness, the other side gets to challenge their testimony. That can't effectively be done when you don't know who they are. (This is above and beyond the more fundamental issue that you can't judge credibility without knowing who is making the allegation.)
If your witness needs to remain hidden due to legitimate concerns for safety and so on, there are ways that can happen. But those ways do not include hiding their identity from the court and the other side's lawyers. There are procedures. None of them seem to be happening here.
The submission of this document is, to be blunt, sanctionable. It'll probably slide in the interests of a speedy GTFOOMCR* but it should be sanctioned.

* the final half of that stands for "of my court room." You should be able to get the rest.
But it gets even better - because, apparently, her witless is "of sound mine."
John 11:35
Back to the main document. I'll look at the rest of that drek later.

So we've got a nameless affiant - actually, that should be 'affiant,' the scare quotes are virtually mandatory - alleging that Smartmatic engaged in a conspiracy with Chavez.

Did she submit a declaration?
Sorry for the delay - basting
Right. So I went looking to see if Powell (or any other attorney) submitted a declaration to accompany the exhibits. I don't see one.

I do note that the exhibit numbering seems to go "8, 9, 10, 101, 102" which might be a numbering system somewhere but if so I don't know where.
So as far as we know, this Exhibit 1 is just something she found on the Internet (I fear this may be literally true) and not actually something she can submit as testimony without just utterly shattering her Rule 11 obligations to the court.
Truly we live in the dumbest of timelines.
This is off-the-rails nuts. Now we're jumping from Smartmatic to Dominion - with a single, lonely, inexplicably italicized "of" as a bonus - with no explanation of the link. And we're turning to the "Declaration of HarriHursti" (Who may or may not actually be "Harri Hursti").
There is, of course, no explanation of who Harri Hursti is, whether this purports to be expert or fact testimony, what the basis is for either, and if I had printed this I would have just thrown the file physically across the room and ohgod it's only page 4.
So let's look at Exhibit 107 - which turns out to be RECYCLED WITHOUT EXPLANATION FROM A DIFFERENT CASE? THIS ISN'T HER OWN WITNESS? WHAT THE CRAP??
Seriously, what the hell is this other case even? What's its relevance? Why was this declaration submitted? This is purported expert testimony. Has this person been accepted as an expert and if so in what and for what purpose?
You cannot - I feel like this should go without saying - just slap an exhibit label on random crap and dump it into the docket and expect to be taken seriously, let alone have something accepted as evidence. This. Is. Not. How. Anything. Works.
Also, these are statements that appear to allege that bad things can happen, they are not even offered as evidence that bad things did happen.
Paragraph 9 is special. Just loads and loads of factual assertions without citations to anything, including her less-than-52-card-deck of daffydavits.
Seriously, this is a paragraph jam-packed with what we refer to in the trade as "conclusory allegations," which is a lawyerly way of saying, "yeah, you're just pulling this stuff right out of your ass."
Making insinuating statements like this to suggest wrongdoing or malfeasance that you cannot prove does not play well in court. At all.
Either they disregarded those concerns or they decided that they had been sufficiently addressed between the time the "Texas Board of elections" [sic] rejected the system and Michigan accepted it.

Neither scenario gives rise to a claim of any kind.
Also, the rejection by Texas needs a cite, the "disregarded all the concerns" is a conclusory allegation and just sweet lord what am I reading here?
So she's submitted an unauthenticated paper of some kind from somewhere without submitting the CV of the alleged "expert" (who she hasn't apparently retained)?
How -- just how -- just what the hell - HOW DO YOU EVEN?
Exhibit 2 is a paper from somewhere. That is all we can say about it. There is no indication of source on it anywhere, so it's impossible to tell whether it's a preprint or peer reviewed, or even whether it's from a book or a journal.

And it's printed in landscape. Badly.
This is absolutely bloody disgraceful legal work.
Oh yeah - and there's no PINCITE for the quote, so if I want to find the context I have to crawl through the whole landscape-printed with cut-off footers paper to find it.

Courts just love that.
And - just putting the cherry on top of the nuts on top of the whipped cream on top of this stale turd sundae - the paper hasn't been OCRed.
I can't find it. Not only can't I find it, I can't find anywhere in there that discuses rewriting a program or physically hacking. And the authors - there are more than one - seem to refer to themselves in the first-person plural; the alleged quote is first-person singular.
That's not to say that the quote isn't in the paper, of course. It might be in the parts that were cut off when the landscape thing happened, but I'm really starting to doubt it's in there.
Oh good. Now we've got an "expert" who is at least being claimed as someone who knows they are providing evidence for the plaintiffs.

More from Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Election Litigation Update: DC - the "let's sue the Electoral College" case.

This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.


And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.


This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.


Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.


Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.

If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:

1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.


3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.

5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.

7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.

So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
ALL
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Happy New Year, y'all -
And let's start with an election litigation update for the Gohmertian Goofiness.

As of 3 minutes ago no reply brief from Gohmert but some other updates have appeared.

(No, the judge won't ignore his filing if it's a little late.)

AND IT GETS BETTER -
I just looked for an update. Found one. They're asking for another hour because the dog ate their homework.


Seriously, they've been using Google Docs for their serious work and are having problems making that work with Word to produce the final version of this filing.

That filing, by the way, can be up to 50 pages long but, given the strong hint in the motion granting permission for the overlength filing, should address everything not just in Pence's brief but also in the House Amicus and the proposed intervenor's motion to dismiss.


Meanwhile, the treasonweasel cosplayers from Michigan want to intervene as plaintiffs.

Not only do they want to intervene, they want to do so in their "official capacities as Presidential Electors for the State of Michigan."

Note: They are not Presidential Electors. Anywhere.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous performative litigation.

New filing in Orly Tatiz's bonkers attempt to halt the 2nd Impeachment trial. It's a gloriously burning train wreck of mangled formatting and hideous typography.

Let's dig

For those who may have forgotten, this is the case we saw last week - the one where Orly took the 12(b)(6) game to the next level by LITERALLY forgetting to include actual claims in her complaint.

So technically it's still unclear what she's suing over.

And, frankly, it's not like I can talk about the merits of this one because there aren't any. But the sheer stunning insanity of the formatting alone makes this worth a thread.

Even though, honestly, it's not the worst Orly has produced.

For context, the text below comes from the State of Hawaii's 2012 response to a motion for reconsideration in one of the birther cases.

"an inartfully collated, defectively stapled, and misordered collection of pages" is still one of my favorite descriptions of a filing ever.


Just to start with, apparently we're putting the caption on both sides of the (incomplete) line now. Single spaced on one side, double spaced on the other, no less. With everything but the judge's name in caps.
SOCIETY

More from Politics

David Burney
David Burney
@jdburney1
What does "patriots in control" mean?
What would that "look like" in reality?


So a massive adult film star in all his glory is included in an official FBI government filing


Hunter Biden's book is categorized as "Chinese


TIME admits to "conspiracy" to "not rig, rather


A "pillow guy" has military-grade intercepts detailing the IP addresses and device MAC IDs of EVERY incursion into every county in the
POLITICS
Melissa (she/her)
Melissa (she/her)
@LiteraryMouse
In regards to the #CapitolCoup, I’m in a unique position. I monitored forums ahead of time and then was present for the coup itself.

These are my observations based on what I saw and the evidence that’s been collected so far. I reserve the right to adjust my analysis as needed.

Let’s talk about the organization of the coup first. Seeing some people insist that the coup must have been highly planned and coordinated.

Yes and no. This was a #StochasticCoup. We’ll see little evidence of direct communication between Trump and the insurrectionists.

Within the insurrectionists, there was not one group that executed the storming of the Capitol.

Rather, there were a number of smaller groups working independently towards the same goal. I expect you’ll see little evidence that these various groups communicated with each other.

What you will see is detailed planning and coordination within these small groups.

Then there were the joyriders, those Trump supporters who weren’t directly involved in any plotting but who were more than happy to go along for the ride once the coup was in motion.

After four years, the insurrectionists were carefully attuned to Trump’s messaging.

Every tweet and statement of his was treated as marching orders and carefully dissected for meaning.

It’s why shutting down Trump’s Twitter account was so important.
POLITICS , INSURRECTIONISTS
Advertisement
Brian Cates
Brian Cates
@drawandstrike
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
POLITICS
Jugal / \u091c\u0941\u0917\u0932
Jugal / जुगल...
@jugalrp
IMP 🚨 INVESTIGATION

India's lockdown was called world's largest, strictest etc. @ BBC, we wanted to know how the govt planned it.

So, what're we looking at?

Govt docs that reveal every department/agency who was consulted by PM Modi before imposing #lockdown.

#Thread


How did we access the docs? Well, for months my colleague Arjun Parmar and I filed RTI applications with the relevant govt depts - State & Centre. Hundreds in fact. We then filed appeals, then filed second appeals..phew!

Background - this day last year, India had less than 600 cases and nine deaths. Some European & Latin American nations (with way higher numbers) had imposed lockdowns.

China, with thousands of deaths and cases by March 2020, never imposed a national lockdown.

One more thing - India started monitoring and preparing it's response to coronavirus from January 8, 2020. It was repeatedly mentioned that none other than PM was personally leading the effort.

Let's start with what we've got now.

India's lockdown was imposed by an @ndmaindia order. Who heads NDMA? Prime Minister.

So we asked NDMA - who all were consulted before lockdown? Also, how many NDMA meetings did the PM attend? Their response.

NIL to both. Yes, NIL.
POLITICS
GalacticRedPill
GalacticRedPill
@GalacticRedPill
Since the election what have we seen happen?

*HCQ is suddenly "safe" and quietly being reinserted back into literature for fighting the virus cheaply.

*The media suddenly cares about NY Covid victims and Cuomo's role in their death.

*The Lincoln Project have been exposed.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

TWABMPTLPAFA
TWABMPTLPAFA
@SeekerIIIII
Act of 1871
This is Long but it will end with a BOOM

With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress,”

Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act — passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War — was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers

and neck of America.
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their

foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin.

With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
HISTORY
Mystery Grove Publishing Co.
Mystery Grove Publishi...
@MysteryGrove
By popular demand, here is the official Mystery Grove Film Recommendations list. Watch all of these in order if you want to truly understand the world we live in today.
CULTURE
Advertisement
Aron Hyman
Aron Hyman
@aron_hyman
THREAD: The following tweets are for the purposes of stories that will appear in Sunday Times Daily. The videos and images depicted may be upsetting but are deemed to be in the public interest. This is the story of the Ayanda "Borhey" Mtila as far as we were able to verify it.


On 13 October Mtila as defacto overlord of the Boko Harram gang, allegedly carried out his penultimate cash-in-transit robbery. Sources say he sustained a head wound in a shootout with security guards. Some friends believe he was killed by a fellow

He died two days later, on 15 October, after allegedly being in a coma for more than a day. His funeral was a spectacle, held on Nyanga Sports fields on 24 October and attended by hundreds of people. Sources say it was made possible by Paarl businessman Lukhanyo "Spur" Mangena.
CRIME
Dr Fish Philosopher Todd (Dr FPT)\U0001f41f
Dr Fish Philosopher To...
@ZoeSTodd
1. I was walking in the woods yesterday and I had an epiphany. It wasn’t one I wanted to have. I was thinking about today’s class, where we are reading Kimmerer’s ‘Gathering Moss’. I’ve taught Braiding Sweetgrass in multiple classes every year since 2016. It’s eminently teachable

2. Both books are beautifully written. Students uniformly enjoy them as assigned reading. They do a great job communicating to non-Indigenous folks the contours of basic Indigenous relationships to more-than-human beings. They’re wildly popular with white readers.

3. I’ve found Braiding Sweetgrass to be a great entry point for non-Indigenous folks to Indigenous scholarship. But this is where yesterday’s epiphany comes in. Neither Braiding Sweetgrass or Gathering Moss tends to the deep deep lineages of Indigenous scholarship in Canada or US

4. As the popularity of ‘Braiding Sweetgrass’ has soared, I’ve seen more and more white folks wax on about ‘braiding knowledge’. But they often don’t know any of the lineages of these concepts beyond what is presented in this one book. They confidently run with this.

5. Kimmerer does a commendable job of weaving in her own experiences, her family stories+nods to some very important knowledge keepers who deserve to be celebrated for their work. But Braiding Sweetgrass does not tend to the citational politics Sara Ahmed & others teach us about
SOCIETY
Lu_lu\U0001f498
Lu_lu💘
@luciame16
Some thoughts on episode 54 of #Hercai

If you ever cross the distance and come to me, come with love that blooms in your heart.
~ Şems-i Tebrizi

#Reyyan #Miran #ReyMir #EbruŞahin #AkınAkınözü
#HercaiThoughts


1
I have to make a note before writing about this episode. I was the person (still am) who thinks that bringing back D. was a bad idea. I repeat it that for me the writing of S1 and S2 is like tossed into the bin with that plot evolution, but they had to invent something+
#Hercai

2
+ to be able to continue to prolong the general story after Aslan’s story did not work out. All the suffering of M., all the crying seems for “nothing” for two seasons and we viewers are also kind of fed up in seeing him cry all the time when with the upcoming episodes+
#Hercai

3
+he is justified the most to cry. With her resurrection now the attention shifts back to Miran’s storyline and I don’t know if I like this to be honest. This said, Dilsha is here and we have to deal with her.
#Hercai

4
So, my comments are going to be how I find they wrote her into the story, the details we get to know, the flashbacks we get to see, the way it was filmed and directed, with leaving out if I agree on it or not but describing along the way what I saw.
#Hercai
CULTURE