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.

It a 36-page opinion.

And it starts out strong.
ACK - my bad -

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.
Seriously, though - this is yet another judge who is responding to these request to overturn the election with the judicial version of "you want me to *what*? Hard pass."
The judge is being kind to the plaintiffs here and doesn't mention the epiceyeburningdisasterthatwastheoriginalcomplaint. But you'll note that the judge also doesn't mention what claims were in that complaint or whether they are the same as the ones in the 1st Amended Complaint.
(I'm jumping past some material that's not all that noteworthy or important - busy day today on many levels, so not a lot of time.)
This is stated mildly, but it's a bit of a benchslap. It's very much "you really didn't do anything right and I had to remind you about things you should have done days earlier."
For the nonlawyers:
"Benchslap" is an official term of art, and is defined in Black's Law Dictionary. See below.
And noting that the rapid pace of these proceedings is the result of plaintiff's requests, so Sidney is getting what she asked for here.
It looks like this is - no real surprise - going to be another one of those "you lose for all of the reasons" opinions.
I didn't look too closely at the sovereign immunity issues in this case, but I did see they were briefed by MI. It appears that they were briefed very well.
The exception that allows prospective injunctive relief to end a continuing violation is, as the court points out, narrow.

On this court's reading, all the Kraken suits should be done and dismissed on these grounds, I think.
This passage also goes to why the SCOTUS petition in the Pennsylvania case is on very shaky ground, to put it mildly. That case is trying to disguise a request that SCOTUS instruct a state court on how to conform to state law as a constitutional claim. It's not well-disguised.
As the court points out, the defense is arguing that all the federal claims that Sidney raised are really just state law claims in a cheap disguise.
Not only does the court agree, it somewhat gratuitously quotes a bit of the Defense's snark about the insane nature of these claims when it does it.
Footnote 2 is interesting. No reason is given, but I don't think one is really necessary.
This makes it clear that dismissal is inevitable. That will be handled separately, but if the claims are barred by the 11th Amendment, they must be dismissed.
The first paragraph of the mootness section is succinct.
The court points out that plaintiffs failed to use the MI law procedures for challenging an election, which locks them out of most of the relief they wanted, and that there's no point to letting them look at machines if they have no case.
And, quoting both the 11th Circuit in Wood v Raffensperger and Justice Wecht's concurrence in the PA Supreme Court's ruling in Kelly, finds that there's no basis in law for a court to undo an election by telling the legislature to appoint electors. So the case is also moot.
But wait! There's more!

Let's talk about laches, because laches is another reason Sidney loses.
You'll notice that one of the things the court points to is Sidney's lengthy delay in bothering to serve the defendants. That kind of thing really does matter. (Of course, all the other delays didn't help either.)
Nice use of scare quotes here.
The court finds that there was unreasonable delay - based in part on the Plaintiffs' own concessions.

And that there is prejudice to the defendants. So the plaintiffs also lose on laches.
For the nonlawyers:
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.
But the court finds that abstention is warranted.
And we're still not done! We haven't talked about standing yet. So let's talk about standing.

There's no standing for the equal protection claim. There's also no standing for the Elections Clause and Electors Clause claims.
(I skipped a bunch of material there.)

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.
The court goes on to find that even if none of those reasons to lose the whole case applied, the plaintiffs would still lose the Elections & Electors Clause claims.
And it looks like the Court read the affidavits carefully enough to see that they didn't actually allege anything real.
So there's no likelihood of success on the merits for Equal Protection either.

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.
And even the court was done at this point - it's just "oh, and none of the other factors for injunctive relief work for you either."
Oh, and it looks like Judge Parker was very aware of the real purpose of the lawsuit, and wasn't a fan. At all.
Summary:
Seriously, that was brutal. It won't deter Sidney, of course, because Sidney is all the nuts. But it should.

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.
So that's one tentacle down. Several to go.

/fin
PS - but if you want more, it looks like Akiva is just getting started with his take.
https://t.co/gMyu2IyODj

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.)
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.

More from Law

High crime talk from Fredo


VA curfew


Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China

Warning


March
This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9

You May Also Like

क्या आप जानते हैं कि क्या है, पितृ पक्ष में कौवे को खाना देने के पीछे का वैज्ञानिक कारण!

श्राद्ध पक्ष में कौओं का बड़ा ही महत्व है। कहते है कौआ यम का प्रतीक है, यदि आपके हाथों दिया गया भोजन ग्रहण कर ले, तो ऐसा माना जाता है कि पितरों की कृपा आपके ऊपर है और वे आपसे ख़ुश है।


कुछ लोग कहते हैं की व्यक्ति मरकर सबसे पहले कौवे के रूप में जन्म लेता है और उसे खाना खिलाने से वह भोजन पितरों को मिलता है

शायद हम सबने अपने घर के किसी बड़े बुज़ुर्ग, किसी पंडित या ज्योतिषाचार्य से ये सुना होगा। वे अनगिनत किस्से सुनाएंगे, कहेंगे बड़े बुज़ुर्ग कह गए इसीलिए ऐसा करना

शायद ही हमें कोई इसके पीछे का वैज्ञानिक कारण बता सके।

हमारे ऋषि मुनि और पौराणिक काल में रहने वाले लोग मुर्ख नहीं थे! कभी सोचियेगा कौवों को पितृ पक्ष में खिलाई खीर हमारे पूर्वजों तक कैसे पहुंचेगी?

हमारे ऋषि मुनि विद्वान थे, वे जो बात करते या कहते थे उसके पीछे कोई न कोई वैज्ञानिक कारण छुपा होता था।

एक बहुत रोचक तथ्य है पितृ पक्ष, भादो( भाद्रपद) प्रकृति और काक के बीच।

एक बात जो कह सकते कि हम सब ने स्वतः उग आये पीपल या बरगद का पेड़/ पौधा किसी न किसी दीवार, पुरानी

इमारत, पर्वत या अट्टालिकाओं पर ज़रूर देखा होगा। देखा है न?

ज़रा सोचिये पीपल या बरगद की बीज कैसे पहुंचे होंगे वहाँ तक? इनके बीज इतने हल्के भी नहीं होते के हवा उन्हें उड़ाके ले जा सके।