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 mess.

https://t.co/PvaxB7Nkhi
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.
But anyway they want to make it clear that their suit, no matter how we read all that stuff about them wanting Trump to take steps from the original complaint, really isn't about reinstalling Donald Trump. Or even about closing all the Donald Trump windows and opening them again.
Footnote 33, which is found immediately after Footnote 2 and immediately before Footnote 4, is absolutely amazing on so many levels.
First, it's got an accusation that a journalist selectively edited a video. This is a privileged statement in this context, but it's a potentially problematic statement if it's made out of court - particularly if the video in question wasn't edited at all.
Second, alternate meanings of "get into the Capitol" aren't terribly relevant to the current case. Nor are they likely to be terribly persuasive in criminal proceedings. That said, I'm sure Mr. Davis's efforts to continue to make a record for prosecutors are appreciated.
Third, you filed a motion citing the precedent of the Stewardship of Gondor in an attempt to justify replacing the entire legislative and executive branches of government with unelected caretakers, but you're afraid someone else is making you look like an "extreme lunatic"?
And you are worried that it's the press coverage, and not your chiropteran-excrement insane paper-flinging, that is going to "taint the Court's view" of this case?

Y'all need to reconnect (or possibly connect) with reality.
Fourth, Mr. Davis is really mad at Sollenberger.

Now I do agree that "radical left-wing journalist" is most likely non-actionable opinion, but that wasn't the only thing the letter (which is irrelevant to this case) brought up.
That exhibit is here - it's not relevant to this case or filing, so I'm not going to spend the time digging into it. https://t.co/Pt4qyslEgS
Fifth, implying that your Twitter beef with a reporter is evidence of a "greater coordinated effort to perpetrate an illegal election" isn't going to make it less likely that the judge will notice that you're wearing clownshoes as earrings and have underpants on your head.
Right, that's enough about that footnote. Back to the main body of the batshittery.
I was unaware that the founders of this nation contemplated having a court, acting on an ex parte basis, putting Denethor son of Ecthelion in charge of the whole federal government even if only on an interim basis.
Also, didn't the interim basis in the cited precedent last for nearly a thousand years?
The thing that I can't get over is this:
Even if we assume that HAVA wasn't complied with (and I'm pretty sure that's incorrect), how do you get to the conclusion that this renders the entire election in all 50 states null and void?
This is law, not Calvinball. There's got to be some connection between the alleged infraction and the remedy you're seeking. Here, the infraction is that first-time voters weren't asked for ID if they voted absentee, and the remedy is "put America on pause until new election."
That's...it's just not a thing a court would ever do. It's not how the law works.

We might not be spectacular at the whole common sense thing, but we're not totally bereft of it either.
Pro tip:
Not a thing you want to be telling a court on your fourth attempt at submitting a proposed TRO.

Also pro tip:
You don't want to be on your fourth attempt at submitting a proposed TRO.
Ah. And we're also BIG MAD about *proposed* legislation (which will have a hard time getting past a filibuster, but that's a different topic).
If you're wondering, the legal term of art for an attempt to use proposed legislation that hasn't reached the hearing stages yet much less a floor vote as a reason for immediate emergency ex parte relief is "GTFO. Now."
And, no. Making it easy for qualified voters to vote will not "forever deprive the American people of free and fair elections." Quite the opposite, actually.
1: If you're using a line from the movie, it's not a literary analogy.
2: "Mere fantasy" is generous; "crackhead delusion" more accurate.
3: They are right in "a" sense where "a" = "every."
Yikes. Get help.

In all seriousness: I'll keep talking about this case because it's an absurd misuse of the legal system by licensed attorneys representing clients. But it's getting to the point where it's clear this guy needs help. And to be suspended while he's getting it.
And, no. There is no universe in which you get to put the entire federal government on pause while waiting for a jury trial.

Also, you need to serve defendants to get to trial, so pitter patter.
And, yes. "Await their right to a trial...by jury to manifest" is strange phrasing.
Dude is still arguing that "didn't fully comply with some technical details of elaborate election procedure law," even if true, shocks the conscience and means the whole election was conducted "outside the rule of law."
The dude needs to take less of whatever it is he's taking to stay awake. A lot less of it. Preferably none.
I cannot for the life of me believe, even now, that a licensed attorney would think it advisable to include this line in a court filing.
OK, so now there's an alternative to the updated amended TRO. Which is less drastic in that it doesn't ask us to appoint someone like the dude whose tenure had such a meteoric climax to run the country for an undetermined period, but otherwise seems pretty darn drastic.
"It is unreasonable to wait another 14 to 28 days for Congress and the President to do their jobs."

Hmmm. Wasn't really that hard to say.
Wow. This guy, who said just a little bit upthread (I'm sorry, I mean earlier in the filing, which I keep forgetting isn't a Twitter thing) that he's just a Trump supporter because he sees Trump as not elite, is really upset about policies.

Go figure.
Also, of course we've cited the Epoch Times in one of those footnotes; the filing wouldn't be the same without such a cite.
They still want 14 to 28 days of national hold pattern while trying to find evidence of whether or not the law they say wasn't complied with was complied with, and they think that "does not seem a lot to ask" because why? I don't know, he's on third, and I don't give a darn.
Oh, good. Now Mr. Davis, in a totally sane decision, is placing the whole "40% of his cerebellum removed" thing - which wasn't actually before the court until now - into the record. That's smart.
AND SWEET JESUS WEPT your witless isn't a lawyer why the holy hell do you keep trying to put that lunatic's legal analysis into the record can't you do legal analysis yourself --

You know what? Don't answer that. It's fine.
Ohmygod.

He's literally presenting the 1-page-cv-expert's legal analysis. As if it's expert testimony.

And it's a stupid, stupid, stupid argument.
https://t.co/0svskJKMwT
The Prayer for Relief has hit next-level WTFery.

"Judge, here's a menu, pick or do the cooking yourself, I don't care anymore" is ---

yikes.
But at least we've taken "I got fired" out of the signature block so cautious optimism?
Right. Up next, the new proposed TRO.

I'm just gonna skip to the new, non-LOTR parts of this one.

https://t.co/JkMjzOXkH4
Right.

No, the Courts cannot enjoin Congress from voting; separation of powers. That's dumb. Just totally dumb.

Also, would this include (eg) a declaration of war if we're attacked? Attacked from without, I mean, not by insider threats like Plaintiffs' counsel in this case.
No, you can't make the United States Senate do homework so you can figure out what Congress should or shouldn't do.
No, legislators who vote for a law do not have an ongoing obligation to ensure that the law is enforced. See, eg, The Executive, What Is It Even For?
No, you can't enjoin Congress from enrolling bills either.
No, you don't get to enjoin the President, particularly when your entire theory is "he's illegitimate because the Congress that signed off wasn't elected right."

More from Mike Dunford

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.
I've been trying to think that through - not just legally, but judicially.

The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.


On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even

It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.

Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.

That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.

That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
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.

More from Politics

Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.


This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."

There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?

It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."

The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.

You May Also Like

**Thread on Bravery of Sikhs**
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)

Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI


Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.

Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.


The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.

Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.


In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.

And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.