And it starts out strong.
Good morning, all. There's a little bit of news out of Michigan already this morning - it looks like Judge Parker wanted to start the work week this week with unnecessary and stupid distractions cleared away.
So she dismissed the MI Kraken tentacle sometime after midnight.
Sorry. I'm tweeting without caffeine and it shows. The order rejects the injunction, but it doesn't dismiss the case (yet). Skimming ahead, that appears a foregone conclusion, but technically the case isn't dismissed.
"Benchslap" is an official term of art, and is defined in Black's Law Dictionary. See below.
On this court's reading, all the Kraken suits should be done and dismissed on these grounds, I think.
And that there is prejudice to the defendants. So the plaintiffs also lose on laches.
Abstention is a doctrine where federal courts decline to rule in a case even if they otherwise could to give the state courts a chance to weigh in on the matter. There are a few variants. It's technical; I'm going to skip past most of it.
There's no standing for the equal protection claim. There's also no standing for the Elections Clause and Electors Clause claims.
So - for those keeping score:
The defendants lose because: 11th Amendment, mootness, laches, abstention, and standing.
With that out of the way, it's time to look at the merits of the request for injunctive relief.
And, as most of the lawyers weighing in on these cases have pointed out, federal courts Do Not Like theories that would make every violation of the law a federal matter.
This was a "you lose for all the reasons" ruling. The case may technically not be buried, but it's a zombie at this point - all that's left is to finish it off.
https://t.co/gMyu2IyODj
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason https://t.co/KAgZK8NYPt
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 7, 2020
More from Mike Dunford
THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.
We'll start with the complaint in a minute.
But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.
They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.
We'll start with the complaint in a minute.
But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.
They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop
Woke-ism, multiculturalism, all the -isms \u2014 they're not who America is. They distort our glorious founding and what this country is all about. Our enemies stoke these divisions because they know they make us weaker. pic.twitter.com/Mu97xCgxfS
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice? https://t.co/p8d3flDkGm
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 25, 2021
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
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.
More from Law
@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan
Wisconsin
Georgia
Arizona
Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
The Michigan case in the US Supreme Court originally filed by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood was just distributed today for Conference on 02/19/2021!
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Feb 03 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. https://t.co/jZO624pf7j
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin case in the US Supreme Court is also
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
distributed for Conference on 02/19/2021!https://t.co/zkpTubcG1C
Georgia
This Georgia case, originally filed by Lin Wood, is alo distributed for conference on February 21, 2021!https://t.co/l7j43v5pfD
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Arizona
This Arizona case is also distributed for conference on Febraury 21, 2021!https://t.co/56g1Fphg2l
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
Another Pennsylvania case distributed for conference February 21, 2021.
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Filed by a Republican Congressman who lost his seat because PA Republican Legislature illegally created a mail in ballot law October, 2019, against the Constitution of PA.https://t.co/RYJE6ENZGk
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
