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
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.
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.
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
Oh myyyyyyyyyy
— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) January 25, 2021
Good morning, followers of frivolous election-related litigation - new filings in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al. (aka in re Gondor)
I've really got to get stuff done, but there's time for a really quick overview.
As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a
The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.
Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
More from Law
High crime talk from Fredo
VA curfew
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
March
The #TexasCase has them terrified.
— Major Patriot (@MajorPatriot) December 10, 2020
They are losing it.#CNN pic.twitter.com/FtdWKIXBlB
VA curfew
#BREAKING: Virginia will implement a statewide curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. starting on Dec. 14. Here's what else is changing for Virginians.https://t.co/cH4jdCOZgt
— WUSA9 (@wusa9) December 10, 2020
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
— Dan Scavino\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985 (@DanScavino) December 11, 2020
March
The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
The entire first part of the hearing related to messages sent by certain individuals from the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group seeking cooperation with trans allies at Garden Court. So far all the discussion has been about whether their names must remain redacted.
— LGB Alliance (@ALLIANCELGB) February 11, 2021
The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.
It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.
The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.
Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
