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
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
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.
SOCIETY
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:

1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.

2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."

Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.


There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
COURT
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Happy New Year, y'all -
And let's start with an election litigation update for the Gohmertian Goofiness.

As of 3 minutes ago no reply brief from Gohmert but some other updates have appeared.

(No, the judge won't ignore his filing if it's a little late.)

AND IT GETS BETTER -
I just looked for an update. Found one. They're asking for another hour because the dog ate their homework.


Seriously, they've been using Google Docs for their serious work and are having problems making that work with Word to produce the final version of this filing.

That filing, by the way, can be up to 50 pages long but, given the strong hint in the motion granting permission for the overlength filing, should address everything not just in Pence's brief but also in the House Amicus and the proposed intervenor's motion to dismiss.


Meanwhile, the treasonweasel cosplayers from Michigan want to intervene as plaintiffs.

Not only do they want to intervene, they want to do so in their "official capacities as Presidential Electors for the State of Michigan."

Note: They are not Presidential Electors. Anywhere.
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

More from Politics

George Pittman
George Pittman
@pittman_george
🚨 Thread: It’s Happening!

1. This may be the most important thread I’ve put together, yet. This is truly an exciting time for America. We are about to witness history in the making. It will, in fact, be Biblical. Not just for Us, but for the world.
POLITICS
Murray \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8
Murray 🇺🇸...
@Rothbard1776
NEW: @GenFlynn interview w/ @newsmax [on his view of the 2020 Election and what should happen next] "First of all, @realDonaldTrump won on the 3rd of November. The things that he needs to do right now [are]: appoint a Special Counsel, immediately; seize all of these Dominion and

2/ other voting machines that we have across the country; he needs to go ahead and prioritize by state, and probably by county [Fulton County, Maricopa County, as an example]. Exactly what they did up in Antrim County, MI, and what they discovered. I think if he looks

3/ at a random sampling of some of these counties, he's going to find exactly the same problem. These machines are clearly, CLEARLY, there is a foreign influence that is tied to this system, and it goes back to China. It likely goes to Russia. Likely goes to Iran. We know that

4/ Venezuela has participated in the development of these machines. There's been problems all over the country with them. Not only with Dominion, but with this Smartmatic software. He's got a couple of options that he can take, and he needs to take them right now.

5/ The President could, immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines around country, on his order. He could also order, within the swing-states [if he wanted to], he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states & basically re-run
POLITICS
Advertisement
Faisal Islam
Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed
POLITICS
\U0001d640\U0001d661\U0001d64e\U0001d65d\U0001d656\U0001d657\U0001d656\U0001d66f\U0001d66f
𝙀𝙡𝙎𝙝𝙖𝙗𝙖𝙯𝙯...
@ElShabazzz
HUF / H!ndu Undivided Family - A thread

HUF or H!ndu undivided family is a special provision under the income tax act which allows H!ndu families to enjoy lesser payable income tax as compared to any other individual.

1/n


It also encompasses Buddhist, Ja!n & Sikh families.

HUF Essentially allows a Joint or any family 4 that matter 2 be treated as an individual & the family’s income 4m inherited property, wills and gifts 2 be taxed separately rather than being clubbed with individual’s income.
+

Essentially they can divide their income in two parts.

What does that mean? In essence, It means that it allows the individuals to reduce the payable income tax, as they do not have to consider income from HUF when calculating “their own” taxable income.

3/n

The income from inherited property,wills, gifts is accounted under HUF (with a separate PAN card) and since it is not summed with individual’s income, it warrants a lower payable tax.

4/n

What’s interesting is that, HUF is based on H!ndu law, which does not govern other families allowed to avail benefits of HUF, i.e Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

5/n
POLITICS
Alex Seitz-Wald
Alex Seitz-Wald
@aseitzwald
NEW w/@akarl_smith: Republicans see an opportunity to begin winning back the suburban voters they lost under Donald Trump's presidency by capitalizing on widespread frustration with pandemic life and directing it at an old enemy: Teachers

New NRCC Tom Emmer told staff as soon as he took over to go all in on schools: "It's the teachers unions that want to keep the schools closed. Dems are ignoring the science, and they're standing with their special-interest donors instead of the students."

Going after public sector unions is a throwback to the last time the GOP was locked out of power in DC in 2009/2010 and it's a message that every faction in the party can get behind -- with the potential for crossover appeal to indies and some Dems.

The politics have changed since circa 2009, when the school reform movement was at its height w/ broad bipartisan support, including from the Obama admin.

Now, support for unions is at a nearly 20-year high and teachers unions favorability has gone up a bit during Covid, BUT...

But the frustration over shuttered schools is real and Republicans think they can channel that anger into a grassroots uprising to drive a wedge between suburban voters and the Democratic Party.

"This is the suburban-parent revolt," said Corry Bliss.
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
Sri Adi Jagannatha Perumal Temple, Thiruppullani, TN

Thiruppullani village is located in Ramanathapuram district, It is located 62.3 km distance from Rameswaram. The main tourist attraction in Thirupullani is Sri Adi Jagannatha Perumal Temple....👇👇
@LostTemple7


This temple is mentioned in the Tamil classic devotional literature” Naalayira Dhivya Prabantham”, Thirumangai Azhwar sung a song on this place and the temple. and also Thiruppllai temple is referred in Valmiki Ramayana, Ramayana written by the great Tamil poet Kambar....👇


It is one of the 108 Divya Desam temples. Thiruppullani Sri Adi Jagannatha Perumal is also called as Sri Kalyana Jagannatha Perumal. It is believed that those who have difficulties or dhoshams regarding marriages and childbirth worship Jagannatha Perumal...👇
ALL
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
DODDA GANAPATHI, BENGALURU
#karnatakatemples

Dodda in Kannada means big. Sri Ganesha here is 18 ft tall in height and 16 ft wide. Dodda Ganesha is also known as Shakthi Ganapathi and Satya Ganapathi.

It is said that Kempe Gowda, the founder of Bengaluru, saw a rock here.


The rock had engravings of Ganesha. His sculptors cut the Ganesha murti from that single rock. Later, a shrine was built around the Ganesh murti.

It is believed that Dodda Ganapathi is the protector of Bengaluru. All auspicious events start by praying to Him.


Benne Alankara is the most famous festival here when about 100 kg of butter is coated over Ganapathi every four years and the rich prasad is offered to the worshippers.

Ganesha is also covered in cream colour and is decorated with golden laces and buttons
@GampaSD


The Dodda Ganapathi murti is believed to be still growing in size, especially towards right.

The weavers from old Bengaluru tie a coconut to their looms before starting work. When the work is completed, they break 100 coconuts here along with the one tied on the loom.
ALL
Advertisement
Jig's Patel
Jig's Patel
@jigspatel1988
What is best way to sell strangle in Banknifty on an intraday basis
Simple
at 9:45 Open Option chain and check In which strike highest OI change in call side and put side

Sell both option with combine SL
Enjoy easy and simple intraday trading strategy
Today 35000CE and 34500PE
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , OPTION LEARNING , OPTIONSELLING
Anu Satheesh
Anu Satheesh
@AnuSatheesh5
Importance of Famous Payyannur Pavithra Mothiram or Ring

Payyanur Sri Subramanya Swami Temple 🚩
Kerala

Temple, constructed by Parasurama is known as the 'Pazhani' of Kerala.The place got its name from 'Payyante Ooru' where Payyan is another name by which Subramanya was called.


There are references about this temple in Brahmanda purana. Muni Garga mentions this temple and the place to  the Pandavas when they were in Vanavasa. Temple was destroyed two times, once due to fire and then during the attack of Tipu Sultan.


Important tradition here is wearing of Pavithram by the temple priest. Pavithram is a sort of  ring worn during performing Vedic rituals or during the "pithrubali". Usually worn while performing Tarpana or Shradham. The traditional Pavitram is usually made of Dharbha grass
ALL
Suhail
Suhail
@Suhail
1/ The first 18 months of starting a company is often life or death. I must've made 5 different companies that each failed within 9 mo. 😭 Each time the company failed I figured out what I could do better. Eventually startup #6 got to $40K/mo by month 18. Here’s what I learned...

2/ Stay focused! Ignore things that are a waste of time: meetups & conferences, meetings with no clear agenda, fundraising if you're not fundraising, reading lots of tech media articles, etc. Every week should feel like significant progress in the first year.

3/ Your first 5 hires will be the difference between life or death. Choose carefully. Be picky. Many of the things we do at the company still are a result of those early hires' legacy. Have fun as a tight knit team. It will change & evolve as you get bigger so enjoy this moment.

4/ Growth may be flat for the first 9 months. It's gonna be okay. Almost every company has experienced this: Airbnb had to sell cereal in-between, Slack failed as a gaming company first, Tesla sold only 147 cars after 6 years! You probably won't be an overnight success either.

5/ In the beginning, do customer support yourself. You will learn a lot about why your product sucks. I did 5,000+ support tickets when it was the two of us. Delight customers & fix things fast while you learn. It will help you build an amazing intuition about your customers.
STARTUPS