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
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.
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.
More from Law
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.
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
