BC POLITICS
Saved by @CodyyyGardner

Election Litigation Update - Gohmert.

Reply brief is in. Let's have a look. They are, mercifully, underlength. They had 50 pages available, the PDF is 43 and some of that is cover page, signatures,

 Interesting table of contents. Looks like they're packing a lot in, until you realize that much of the material that's important - like their response to the "you sued the wrong person" material and "injury in fact" take up very little space.
Looks like they decided to skip the table of authorities. Presumably GoogleDocWord ate it too bad for them to fix. This will certainly further endear them to the judge.
This is going to be interesting - leading off a reply brief with a "here's what our cause is about" is certainly a strategy. It's even a bold strategy.

Shall we dig deeper, Cotton?
"We live in a democratic republic in which the Vice President, who will more often than not be a candidate in the election, has the sole and unchallengeable power to decide who wins the election" is a hellofa take.
These people do not appear to understand what either "democratic" or "republic" actually mean. And, given that the plaintiffs are the unduly unqualified cosplayers from Arizona, they also don't seem to understand what "duly qualified" means.
"We didn't care before but we do now because we're dissatisfied with both the will of the electorate and the verdict of the courts" is also a hell of a take.
"We ask you, judge, is it fair to make poor put upon and victimized Mike Pence follow the rules that have governed for more than a century when he can use his feels as an alternate set of rules"?
*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
I do, however, entirely agree with the highlighted characterization of the role of the Vice President at the joint session.
They're setting forth a "brief study" of the background, which is going to be interesting (to say the least).
Creating mistrust and then using the existence of that mistrust to argue that you should be accorded special privileges is the very definition of chutzpah.
The highlighted fact is irrelevant.
"The founders wrote procedural rules so the Vice President gets to declare himself to be the winner if he wants" is another great argument. Really. It must be. Team Kraken is making it.
"We don't want tumult and disorder. We do want the Vice President to invalidate enough electors, despite the results of the election, state lawsuits, and federal lawsuits, to make the loser a winner in what will certainly be a calm and peaceful process."
"Every practicable obstacle should be raised to corruption. Also, please let the Vice President say he's going to be the Vice President for another four years no matter what the certified election results say."
By the way, that's two and a half pages of their reply that are nothing but a description of how the President is elected. That's always a thing you want to inflict on a judge you're forcing to work over a holiday weekend.
Still going through early American history, I see. We're now on Page 10, and there's been nothing even approaching something that addresses the arguments they're putatively replying to.
This is literally the entire section on "The Election of 1800" and I have no idea if it was supposed to be the whole section, if the dog ate the rest, or why it's here.
OFFS - DO NOT WRITE SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

This is a mistake that I've encountered in student work. Do not simply say that "commentators argue" something. You need to make those arguments yourself. You can - and must - cite the commentators you are relying on, but you must argue.
In this case, they're compounding their amateurish error further because THEY DON'T SAY WHAT THE "HIDDEN POWERS" ACTUALLY ARE.

Oh, and also this is the first time we've seen this citation but they don't provide the full cite. Well done.
The issue here is that Congress can - and has in plenty of other contexts - taken whatever actions it can short of an amendment when an amendment is not likely to pass. This isn't the same as saying that 3 USC §5 is unconstitutional.
I don't have the time to go digging through my old con law notes, but there's not a shortage of case law to the effect that Congress can use carrot-and-stick approaches to incentivize states to do things that Congress can't simply require.
This really doesn't support their argument - which they tossed into that final sentence. If anything, it reinforces the opposing argument by showing that even pre-ECA Congress and not the VP decided what votes to accept.
I'll be back in a minute or two with more - I want to pull a reference they're citing in the next section so I can review some stuff.
Didn't find what I was looking for, which was just additional detail. Sorry for the delay.
This section goes a long way toward dismantling the idea that the pseudoelectors from Arizona have any claim to reality - you'll notice that with the possible exception of SC, where the Tilden slate's authority is unspecified, all these slates had some state certification.
The certification might have been questionable in many cases, particularly Louisiana where there was apparently a disputed election for governor on top of the disputed presidential election, but there was something purporting to be authority for them to vote.
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but it feels like a bad idea to quote something that suggests that the ECA might involve questions not subject to judicial review - especially when opposing counsel haven't raised that issue.
(I don't think it's just me.)
Also, all of this strongly suggests that Congress has always been the one to decide what electors are the right ones, not the Vice President.

So they're continuing to wreak havoc on their own arguments here.
And still more of that here. Because even if the ECA is unconstitutional, that's not the remedy they're seeking. They want a declaration that Mike Pence is the literal kingmaker. Whether one Congress can bind another is an unrelated question that they have no standing to raise.
Although, to be fair, they don't actually have standing to raise any of the claims they're raising, so what's one more amirite?
They then jump from history to fantasy and claim - despite everything they've just spent over a third of their brief discussing demonstrating that Congress and not the VP resolves disputes - that the Constitution "empowered the Vice-President to take control of the proceeding."
No legal authority argued for that proposition. And they've just spent OVER A THIRD of their entire reply brief beating their own arguments with a very big stick.
Me: *Looks at next page of brief*
Me:
We're moving on from the alleged historical background to the alleged merits of this case.
Also - no, nobody conceded anything. The responses are oppositions to your request for emergency relief.

And the cited case doesn't come within a parsec of supporting that claim.

Inflate your shoes; you'll fall on your face less.
And now we get to the great part - three sections of the brief that are one sentence long each.
Also, the one in #2 is actively misleading. Their claim is that the ECA is unconstitutional; amicus argued that the ECA complements the 12th Amendment.
Also, you really didn't want to spend 15+ pages discussing the history of how Congress and not the VP has always been the one to deal with objections and then quote that thing I highlighted.

Seriously.
1: Even if we grant the rest of this argument, the prejudice comes in large part from the delay in filing this case SINCE Election Day, not just the other 130 years of delay.
2: It's not the first election where the statute *could* affect the outcome. Just ask Al Gore.
I do not - AT ALL - understand what they're trying to do here, unless they're actively trying to machine-gun the legs out from under their own argument. The Constitution is every bit as silent on the VP's power as it is on Congressional Power.
Seriously. You wanted to remind the court that you're bringing this suit "a fortnite after" the electors met? Really?
Family stuff, back in a bit.
Will be back and forth with the family stuff a bit (New Year's phone calls) but I want to finish with this dreck so I'm going to keep going between calls.
Next up, we've got another "really, why did you spend New Year's Eve writing this" section. I'm particularly confused about why there's a discussion of the Administrative Procedures Act, which I don't remember being raised anywhere because WTF?
Also, these factors are pretty much irrelevant here. I don't think any of the replies raised anything that makes them relevant - the bulk of the challenge isn't specifically to declaratory judgment, it's to the case being clownshoes buffoonery.
But, hey, if the plaintiffs wanted to be the first to talk about Louie the Loopy's obvious forum shopping, why stand in their way?
Again, this is mostly a waste of space, which even the plaintiffs might have figured out since they trailed off in the middle of talking about discretion. That's in the section where they discuss the Anadarko Petroleum standard without quoting it or providing a full citation.
Also, I'm pretty sure that II.C is infra of II.B. Not supra.
1: You have no claims.
2: To the extent you have claims, they did not arise on Dec 14; they arose earlier.
3: To the extent they arose on Dec 14, you wasted more than half the time before Jan 6th.
They really need to confront the whole "so there were like 3 total weeks for our claim to be heard and we waited 2 weeks to bring the claim" thing.
But they don't. Instead, they handwave prejudice without mentioning that they blew through two weeks and now want an earth-shattering constitutional law decision to be made within a period of a few days.
Also. Al Gore really wants to have a word with these clowns, I'm thinking.
"A plaintiff that lacks standing can provide venue" is a very interesting argument. I would very much have liked to see A BLOODY CITATION for it.
1: The case cited deals with waiver on appeal.
2: The document they're calling an "amicus" is coming from someone who has moved to intervene.

That said, I'm not convinced the real Arizona electors are necessary parties.
And, honestly, they're probably right on this point, although I haven't looked at the Dowling argument.
This is also true, which is an independent reason that plaintiffs will lose.
This is a strange paragraph, not least because City of Boerne had - the parenthetical notwithstanding - absolutely fuckall to do with the 12th Amendment, Presidential elections, or Louie Gohmert.
This is possibly the dumbest argument against Pence's opposition that they could possibly have raised. It's literally "we're clearly adverse because they want the case dismissed and we don't" which is, how should I put it, NOT HOW IT DAMN WELL WORKS AT ALL EVER.
Also, I've got no idea what "Whatever public statement one plaintiff made is not binding on the other plaintiffs, especially not a statement by one of the Arizona Electors on Rep. Gohmert" even means.
I'm looking forward to seeing where they're going with this because you can't invent standing by coming up with merits views that are untethered from the known multiverse.
*Sigh*

No. "The need to contest this election" does not create standing even if you really believe the election should be contested. At all.

And never mind all the state courts that ruled that the elections were legal.
Or the number of federal courts that have, in the last two months, said that the piddlyshit stuff you are complaining about doesn't approach a "significant departure" from anything.
Pro tip:
Don't repeat your initial argument in your reply. You have to, well, *reply* in your reply.
And this is apparently the rest of the "injury in fact" section - there's nothing on the Arizona electors, **DESPITE THE SECTION WHERE THEY SAID THE ARIZONA ELECTORS MIGHT HAVE STANDING IF LOUIE DOESN'T**
Also, the argument that general voting rights cases can somehow apply to legislative acts is a massively creative stretch and there better be some damn good attempts made to show that they're not just pulling that out of their collective asses. Or Louie's mouth.
But if "this section" doesn't mean something more than the subsection we just finished, they didn't. At all. Not even an attempt.

Fucking clownshoes.
And this argument assumes that *Pence* is the one who "invokes" anything. Which kind of defies reality. Especially since they've not made any kind of showing that Pence is the one who "implements the statute" that governs how Congresscritters make a decision.
They really didn't want to spend one sentence on each of those arguments. Especially since even the most Trump-friendly court is going to want some reassurance that it can order around Congress and the VP in the 12th Amendment context.
Yogi needs to climb out of the grave, shamble on down to Texas, and explain "over" to Gohmert.
And I think Inigo Montoya would like a word with them about the whole "undisputed" thing.
And it looks like we're done with standing. They made no serious attempt here. No discussion of Arizona at all, and nothing more than handwaving for Gohmert.
They're apparently going to spend a bunch of time on prudential limits instead of discussing those other case-determinative things that they've not mentioned.
Oh, finally a mention of the Arizona electors claims.
1: You have no merit, relative or otherwise.
2: You do not want to be treated fairly, because fair treatment would involve a boot.
3: Discussing zone of interests but not injury-in-fact is an interesting choice.
For the nonlawyers:
Injury in fact is mandatory. If you don't have an injury in fact, nobody cares about zone of interest. The clown car crew forgot to talk about injury in fact.
And I have no literal clue what this is about. At all. ZE-to-the-power-of-RO. First time this is getting mentioned as far as I know.
As far as I know, the bar against friendly suits is jurisdictional because it goes to the case or controversy requirement. I have looked at the cited page of the cited case and I don't see how it helps them at all.
The Defendant has literally only opposed the relief by saying he's the wrong defendant. And nothing was said about personal relationships.
Honestly, I don't think it even crossed their mind that Pence might call this out as a non-adversarial case. They seem to have been woefully unprepared for that.
*Narrator* Looks at footnote 1 of Pence's brief, starts to say something, stops, flips Gohmert the bird, and strolls out of the room.
They think they can name the PARLIMENTARIANS? I am deceased. Just totally deceased.

The parliamentarians are advisory, they have no power. They would be a new level in wrong defendant naming.
Literally Mike Pence: "I'm the wrong party. The right parties are the House and Senate."
These LITERAL Clowns: "Judge, if Pence is the wrong party, we want to sue the parliamentarians or the United States instead."

Dafuq??
They seriously must have pre-drafted something - but section headings only - covering everything that they expected and then decided to stick pointless and useless single-sentence things in there as filler because #reasons.
Page 22 of the House brief. You complete and utter, whitewash down your pants, stuck in the ladder, getting run over by the huge guy on the tiny bike, buffoons.
There were a few ways that they could have made their reply brief worse. But only a few.

I'll be interested to see what grounds are selected for the dismissal, particularly given the timeline.
It will also be interesting to see how much time the judge takes in dealing with this, given the limited amount of time on the clock.
Overall, though, I think I'm getting better at calibrating my Krakenexpectations. Because this was only a marginally worse brief than I thought it would be.

/fin

More from Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Nonlawyer Explainer Thread: On Keeping One's Mouth Shut

It occurs to me that certain private-jet-flying seditionists who continue to yammer on Twitter about their DC excursions provide us with the opportunity to do a little hypo to explore the benefits of silence.

So let's explore what a hypothetical law enforcement interview *might* look like in this situation. I'm not - I want to make clear - drawing from experience as a lawyer here.

I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.

Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.

My father in law is a now-retired homicide cop, and we've had a lot of discussions (especially since I started law school) about criminals and interviews over the years.

So with that in mind, let's look at this hypo.

ALSO - Simplifying for Twitter character counts.

*Knock*
*Door opens*
Agent: Ms [Name]? I'm Agent Smith, and this is Agent Jones. We're with Agency. We'd like to talk to you if you've got a minute.

Ms X: Oh? Is this about that thing at the Capitol?

[Yes, it seems insane but if you're worried about something specific and the cops show up, blurting out something like that is totally a thing that can happen.]
FOR LATER READ
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
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.)
POLITICS
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Good morning, electoral lunacy followers. Welcome to what I suspect will be the 2020 equivalent of the Orly Taitz litigation: Sidney Powell Sues Everoyen For LAL Of Teh ThInGs

This is the first of what will (hopefully) be a limited number of #Kraken-related threads.

That said, I doubt the number will be limited. I think Sidney Powell is the Orly Taitz of the Biden Administration.

And I doubt I've acquired enough maturity since my younger birther-watching days to ignore these. So, yes, at least for cases with public dockets, I'm here.

We've got two filings so far - a Michigan one (King v Whitmer) that has been filed, and a Georgia one (Pearson v Kemp) that cannot presently be located on PACER.

This may be because there are parallel Quorts not in the system but maybe it just didn't get filed.

Here's how I'm going to deal with that - I'll start livetweeting King (the filed one) in a little bit, after I do some turkey prep. I'll do that in this thread, but probably even slower and more interrupted than usual - so you might just want to bookmark and come back later.

Tonight, if there's interest, I might be both willing and able to stream a read of the (maybe unfiled) GA case on Twitch tonight.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
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.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
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.
POLITICS

More from Politics

Alexander
Alexander
@37paday
1/ Imagine that as soon as the referendum result the EU announced that it was looking forward to the end of free movement of UK citizens in the EU


2/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those retired Brits in the EU27 could go home

3/ Imagine if the EU said finally all those Brits in the EU could stop driving down wages, taking jobs and stop sending benefits back to the UK

4/ Imagine if the EU said it was looking to use UK citizens as “bargaining chips” to get a better trade deal

5/ Imagine if the EU told UK citizens in the EU27 that they could no longer rely on established legal rights and they would have to apply for a new status which they have to pay for for less rights
POLITICS
Rich Weinstein
Rich Weinstein
@phillyrich1
For a few weeks I’ve been wondering about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and just how she emerged as a politico. Her path to Washington is shocking, at the very least. My first question was: What were her campaign positions BEFORE she became a national figure?

1/

So I went to her campaign website and took that web address and looked through the internet archive. When I went back to 2017, it was not her website, it belonged to the group "Brand New Congress."

2/

Here's what the web address https://t.co/Uhz2q4Dpll looks like now:

3/


Here's what the same web address looked like in late 2017:

4/


What's “Brand New Congress?” BNC is a group of Bernie Sanders staffers who got together, decided to make the 2018 midterms all about Bernie policies by taking his ideas & finding 400 Bernie carbon copies to dump into Congressional & other races, creating a 400 headed Bernie.

5/
POLITICS
Advertisement
The Irish Border
The Irish Border
@BorderIrish
- Jim
- Yes, Border
- What are you doing?
- Just standing here
- I see that. And I don’t mind, but it’s just that you said you were Leaving
- I am
- ... two years ago. And you’ve been standing there since then
- Doing nothing
- Doing, as you say, nothing
- I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Still here so, Jim?
- I am, Border
- But you’re still ...
- Leaving. 100%. Leaving.
- Do you not feel like a bit a prick, Jim, you know saying you’re Leaving but then
- Standing here for two years in the open air doing absolutely zilch?
- That’s it, Jim
- I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Jim
- Yes, Border
- Have you thought about how to Leave?
- In what way?
- Moving is not really my area of expertise, but just off the top of my head, you could go that way👉, or that way👈. You could 🚶‍♂️or🏃🏼‍♂️or even✈️
- You’re being difficult now. I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Border
- Jim
- This is quite boring, isn’t it?
- It is that
- Did you ever hear tell of a lad called Samuel Beckett, Border?
- Oh aye. Went to school round here. Quiet lad
- ...
- Still Leaving, Jim?
- Still Leaving, Border
- Ok, Jim

- Looking forward to Leaving, Jim?
- Oh yes
- Why?
- The weather
- The weather?
- It’s going to be sunny
- Sunny?
- Yes. And uphill
- Uplands is the word, I think, Jim
- Yes. Funny uphills
- Sunny uplands, Jim
- That’s it. I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim
POLITICS
Mangy Jay
Mangy Jay
@magi_jay
I don't think that "Democrats were cowards and couldn't stand up to McConnell" is the correct framing. Dems clearly made a political calculation. Plenty to potentially criticize about that calculation, but it was informed by factors unrelated to generalized "fear of republicans"

What we largely know now:
-There would never have been enough GOP votes to convict
-GOP had the power to hold up *all* Senate business & that means COVID relief (Dems would have been blamed for this hold up)
-Witnesses were uncooperative & would have had to have been subpoenaed

So I think the correct framing is that Democrats made a political calculation that the benefit of adding witnesses (who would not change the outcome) was not worth the political & moral cost of holding up COVID relief, as well as important confirmations. . . .

This calculation can be criticized on its own merits, but it's categorically different than just being scared of McConnell & the GOP.

For my own part, I think an error Democrats made w/r/t witnesses was not calling cooperative police officers who had been attacked that day. Just a few personal narratives from the police would have deeply embarrassed the GOP. That's a missed opportunity, in my view.
POLITICS
Annika Brockschmidt
Annika Brockschmidt
@ardenthistorian
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.


Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)

Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.

Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte


“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”

So close.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940\u092e\u093e\u0932\u0940 \u0939\u093f\u0924\u0947\u0936 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u0940
श्रीमाली हितेश अवस्थी...
@HiteshAwasthi89
#Thread
Benefits of writing SRI RAMA Jayam!!!

Writing Sri Rama Jayam is known as Likitha Japam- Writing Meditation. This gives one a complete sense of surrender to an inner conscience and peace while writing or chanting the mantras.

#Sri_Rama_Jayam #RamaNavami

Cont 👇

You can write this in any language of your choice. It is the connecting chords with the divine and your inner self.

Below are some points that we came across on the benefits :

Cont 👇

1. Vedas tell that as the sun dispels the darkness, the chanting of Rama Nama dispels all evil and obstacles of life. It is a way of liberation and salvation of human suffering.

2. When you think, that all roads are blocked to walk away from day to day problems..

Cont 👇

writing ‘Sri Ram Ram Ram’ gives you the most needed clarity of thoughts to find away out of odd situations.

3. It was told that a calmness engulfs as one indulges in writing the Sri Rama Jayam bringing in more clarity of mind, tolerance & strength to withstand obstacles in life.

4. Devotion of service of life and its varied forms is devotion to God. So there is no right or wrong way of writing this. The very thought and process to write is a connection with god and finds a inner meaning.

Cont 👇
ALL
\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0940\u092e\u093e\u0932\u0940 \u0939\u093f\u0924\u0947\u0936 \u0905\u0935\u0938\u094d\u0925\u0940 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
श्रीमाली हितेश अवस्थी ...
@HiteshAwasthi89
#Thread
An interesting story of Kamala Devi hazarika for all Sanatanis...🙏

A Xtian missionary was sent to Assam for the promotion of religion. His name was Cruz. He came across to one the boys from an influential family in Assam to teach him English.
@noconversion

Cont 👇


The p@stor slowly began to study the house and he learned that the boy's grandmother was the most influential person in the house. So he thought 'Corrupting the grandmother's mind can make the whole family Xtian as well as the whole village.

Cont 👇


The p@stor began to tell Grandma the stories of how J€$u$ cured leprosy of lepers, how He gave sight to the blind, etc..But after listening to him, the strong Sanatani grandmother said. A stone turned into a living woman (Ahalya) for our Rama when he touched the stone.

Cont 👇


She spoke of Rama setu where stones floated in sea just by writing his name on the stones and that they are still floating today.
The p@stor continued his efforts but all his tricks went in vain.

Cont 👇


One day he had brought a cake from the church and he thought of offering it to grandmother but he was doubtful that she would eat it. But contrary to his expectation, she took the cake and ate it.

Cont 👇
ALL
Advertisement
Nikita Poojary
Nikita Poojary
@niki_poojary
Mr. Vijay Kedia built a net worth of over Rs. 800 crores.

But you probably never read past that headline.

So I binged hours of interviews to learn his investing principles and strategies.

Here are 20 lessons on investing from @VijayKedia1 Sir:

Collaborated with @AdityaTodmal


Before I start, a quick disclaimer, please don't ape his portfolio.

As the entry price, horizon and risk appetite would be far different than yours.

Rather lets draw inspiration and try to learn his stock picking skills.

Now let's DIVE IN👇

1/ Started off as a trader:

- Soon, beginner’s luck started to fade out and loses started to mount, to an extent where his mother was about to sell her ornaments.

- Although he was able to dodge the situation.

- This incident taught him the biggest lesson to have a stop-loss.

2/ Punjab Tractors:

- In 1990, he made his first investment by putting in his 10-years savings of Rs 35,000 in this stock, based on a news trigger that tractor industry will witness a turnaround.

- It worked and fetched him 4-5 times which he calls it as a fluke.


3/ He believes that an investor must possess three qualities:

i. Knowledge,
ii. Courage, and
iii. Patience.
GENERICLEARNINGS , ALL
Anu Satheesh
Anu Satheesh
@AnuSatheesh5
Guruvayur Sri Krishna & Coconut with Horns.
#Krishnaleela
#Bhakthi
🕉
We’ve all grown up listening to stories of Shri Krishna. This one is a famous story of Shri Krishna in Guruvayur Temple, also called Dakshina Dwaraka.


There lived a villager who planted coconut saplings and had promised that he would offer the 'first coconut' from each of his coconut trees to "Guruvayurappan". When the trees started to yield coconuts, he collected the first coconut from all the trees in a sack 👇


and set forth to Guruvayur.

On the way he was stopped by a robber who asked all the items in the sack. The villager told the robber that the coconuts in the sack belonged to Guruvayurappan and so he was unable to hand it over.
@SriramKannan77 @Jayalko1


The robber with anger asked the villager "Is Guruvaurappan's coconut any different? Does it have horns ?".
Saying so the robber pulled the sack forcefully out of the villager's hand, and coconuts came out..👇


To their astonishment each and every coconut in the sack had horns! Even today, the coconut with horns are displayed in the temple for devotees to see.

Below Picture is not original, as we cannot take photos inside temple.
Hare Krishna
Guruvayurappa
🕉🕉🕉🕉🕉
Shubham
ALL
Ankur Patel
Ankur Patel
@AnkurPatel59
FEW USEFUL CHARTINK SCANNERS :

This Scanner will be More than Enough for any Swing / Positional Trader to find Good Stocks.

Few Important Chart ink Scanners which can help you to find Setups and boost up your Trading Account : 🧵

Do Retweet If you If it Useful

1. Momentum Stocks

This Scanner can be helpful for Short term Swing Trades . you can easily find Stocks which are in Momentum.

Stocks which are up by 20 % in 5 Days
Stocks which are up by 30 % in 30 Days
Stocks which are up by 30 % in 30 Days

2. Volume Spike

We always Look for Price and Volume Confirmation for Breakout Trading. This scanner will help you to find the Stocks Which has given a move with Good Volume . You can keep this Stock in Radar and catch the Next move in them :

3 . Reversal Scan

Stocks which are Down by 20 % + in 5 days

When Market Corrects for sometime , You can find Stocks where selling is Exhausted and they can make a Good Reversal move .

4. Reversal Scan - Stock Down continues 5 days .

If you Know the Concept of 3-5 Days move . you might catch few stocks from this scanner. Always try and Pick stocks which are in strong momentum , you have more Chances of Getting Right in Reversal Trade.
TRADING SCREENERS , TRADING SCREENER , ALL