Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:
1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.
For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
Lawyers - at least competent ones - will zero in on the alleged injury and the evidence that the injury was caused by the defendant states.
Courts care about how the person bringing the complaint was allegedly harmed by the person being sued. If there's not a harm you can sue over and/or you can't show how the person you are suing caused that harm, You Have No Case.
The motion for leave to file doesn't seem to allege an actual injury that courts address, and doesn't really allege how the state in question caused that injury.
I am not worried in the least about the case.
https://t.co/QRIBlW6qf6
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 8, 2020
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
I'll let them take it. I looked at the injury section and then deleted the download.
https://t.co/ipbla8ose4
I *do* want to pick it apart!
— Actually malicious, no actual malice (@apark2453) December 8, 2020
And... Wow. This is art.
154 pages.
One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".
1/ https://t.co/PgNRwnpxKY pic.twitter.com/b89qpCFRp5
More from Mike Dunford
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.
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.
Link: https://t.co/oOJZD1F4x2
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) January 4, 2021
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.
Election Litigation Thread - Georgia:
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.
At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.
The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.
Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said
Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.
In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:
My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.
And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
OK, so since my attempt to sit back while Akiva does all the work of going through the latest proof that not only the pro se have fools for lawyers has backfired, let's take a stroll through the motion for injunctive relief.
They've also got a brief in support of their injunction motion, but I've got client work that needs doing. Hopefully @questauthority has you covered
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 4, 2021
At the start, I'd note that the motion does not appear to be going anywhere fast - despite the request that they made over 80 hours ago to have the motion heard within 48 hours.
The most recent docket entries are all routine start-of-case stuff.
Why isn't it going anywhere quickly? Allow me to direct your attention to something that my learned colleague Mr. Cohen said
Folks, judges DO NOT read complaints or petitions when they are filed, and they DO NOT just up and act on the "requests for relief". If you want something, you need to actually ask the court for it by a motion, not just put it in your "here's what we want if we win" section
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 4, 2021
Now I'm not a litigator, but if I had an emergency thing that absolutely had to be heard over a holiday weekend, I'd start by reading the relevant part of the local rules for the specific court in which I am filing my case.
In this case, this bit, in particular, seems relevant:
My next step, if I had any uncertainty at all, would be to find and use the court's after-hours emergency contact info. I might have to work some to find it, but it'll be there. Emergencies happen; there are procedures for them.
And then I'd do exactly what they tell me to do.
I've been trying to think that through - not just legally, but judicially.
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.
Can you game out where it would go it theoretically Trump did enact some EO demanding the impounding of voting machines? As that\u2019s clearly the game. Like he signs it, then what? Do marshals listen or refuse? Do states sue and get an emergency injunction and that\u2019s the end?
— Bryan Duva (@duva60) December 21, 2020
On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even
It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.
Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.
That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.
That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
More from Court
There won't be a rerun of Jan 6. The riot at the Capitol was unique in many ways: Trump called for it; it was the last chance to "overturn" the election; it was huge in scale.
The coming Trumpist events on Jan 17 and Jan 20 will probably be much smaller in scale, especially in DC. The MAGA crew can't buy another flight and take more days off work so soon after Jan 6.
Some of the Trumpist forums are actively suspicious of these events, claiming they're FBI or Antifa traps. A lot of people at TDW felt that the *design* of this flyer was too lefty to be real!
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean everything will be OK. The statehouse events on Jan 17 have the potential to turn violent, where a few hundred people could be enough to overwhelm local authorities.
MAGA anger at a lot of the GOP is high, as well as against Dems. Even red states could see problems, so I hope authorities are prepared.
The stuff I've heard in the last 72 hours\u2014from members of Congress, law enforcement friends, gun shop owners, MAGA devotees\u2014is absolutely chilling.
— Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) January 10, 2021
We need to brace for a wave of violence in this country. Not just over the next couple of weeks, but over the next couple of years.
The coming Trumpist events on Jan 17 and Jan 20 will probably be much smaller in scale, especially in DC. The MAGA crew can't buy another flight and take more days off work so soon after Jan 6.
Some of the Trumpist forums are actively suspicious of these events, claiming they're FBI or Antifa traps. A lot of people at TDW felt that the *design* of this flyer was too lefty to be real!
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean everything will be OK. The statehouse events on Jan 17 have the potential to turn violent, where a few hundred people could be enough to overwhelm local authorities.
MAGA anger at a lot of the GOP is high, as well as against Dems. Even red states could see problems, so I hope authorities are prepared.
In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
J. Gibbons https://t.co/TieeoF2bZd
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) December 5, 2020
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
