Good morning.
At 10 am there will be a hearing in Atlanta for Sidney Powell’s “kraken” conspiracy lawsuit to overturn the Georgia elections. Just this morning, a judge in Michigan tossed a similar effort to overturn that state’s results.
Here’s a quick primer on the GA case.
“Much like the mythological 'kraken' monster…their claims of election fraud and malfeasance belong more to the kraken’s realm of mythos than they do to reality.”
“The security of the state’s electronic voting equipment was not compromised.”
This weekend, the defendants dismantled it in a brutal motion to exclude her “expert” witnesses.
It’s too detailed to describe but here it is.
https://t.co/0z9soJ3Vtv
Judge Timothy Batten, a GWB appointee, on the bench.
He tells the parties this hearing is being audiocast nationally so...be forewarned.
Legal problems include: standing, untimeliness, state claims not federal claims made.
It's breathtaking:
Have a federal judge rule that "massive fraud" occurred, scrap the entire election in Georgia and effectively name Donald Trump the winner.
"This case simply does not belong in this court," he says.
Belinfante says the suit seeks "to substitute judicial fiat" for "the will of the people."
There is by now a growing body of case law that cuts against almost everything Powell has argued.
"At this point," she says, "there is simply no question that Joe Biden has won Georgia's election."
"Voters not lawyers choose the president. Ballots not briefs decide elections."
Statistical analysis, video, etc.
He asks her about federal/state claim issue.
Powell swears without explanation that she has raised federal claims.
Powell: These are federal claims.
Powell: Bush v Gore allows it.
*Shrug emoji*
Powell says she came forward with her claims as fast as possible.
She is saying this is a massive case with worldwide importance.
Frankly, she sounds crazy.
She mentions the Fulton County video...
She is completely ignoring Judge Batten's schedule and is likely flirting with disaster.
Powell says yes, there's more fraud everywhere--everywhere!--in Senate seats, House seats, gubernatorial seats...
"This is nowhere near over," she says.
He asks: How do your clients survive the motion to dismiss on standing?
Powell says electors have standing.
Appeals courts, he adds, have made it clear they don't want federal court handling this issue. They want state courts doing it.
Extreme importance felt by a litigant is not a legal argument as far as I can tell.
She's back to the conspiracy theory evidence:
The military intelligence canard.
The "lie" about the water leak.
The "suitcase" votes....
Plaintiffs also do not have standing, Batten rules.
Powell could have questioned the use of Dominion voting machines in GA months ago, not three weeks after the election.
"As if such a mechanism even exists and I find that it does not," he says.
More from Law
A Warning:
The 'Freeports' in at least 10 locations in Britain will evolve into Charter Cities with their own laws. They will NOT be legally bound to ANY of the trade agreements between the UK and EU or any other country. They will be used to bypass all International scrutiny
'Sovereign UK' makes deal with Charter city (physically but NOT legally part of the UK) which then trades to other countries OUTSIDE of the constraints of International laws
Thus bypassing all restrictions , tariff, tax, human rights, climate change legislation - everything
https://t.co/f35zFvkCHQ
The 'Freeports' in at least 10 locations in Britain will evolve into Charter Cities with their own laws. They will NOT be legally bound to ANY of the trade agreements between the UK and EU or any other country. They will be used to bypass all International scrutiny
'Sovereign UK' makes deal with Charter city (physically but NOT legally part of the UK) which then trades to other countries OUTSIDE of the constraints of International laws
Thus bypassing all restrictions , tariff, tax, human rights, climate change legislation - everything
https://t.co/f35zFvkCHQ
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]