Good morning, post-election frivolous performative litigation followers - we've got another new filing in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al.
It's yet another motion for a Temporary Restraining Order - making it the 3rd in 3 days.
And it's a
So they're still stuck at Step 1.
But that's honestly the least of their issues.
I'm not a litigator but I don't think that's a recognized alternative to attempting to provide notice to the adverse party.
...unique.
Do they think this is the Lord of the Rings? Should this pleading be titled "Waiting for Aragorn"?
First of all, they forgot to include a proper citation and pincite.
Second, no, really, what the bloody hell are you people SMOKING?
I just keep staring at the boldface and italicized "Gondor has no King" on the screen.
My eyes are refusing to move further into the document.
MY.
GOD.
They want the entire government (less the judiciary) placed into "a state of stewardship" on an ex parte basis *pending* actual proceedings.
I can't even.
Pro tip:
Invest in a good dictionary. A printed one. Cite to that.
Also, don't end citations in the middle of words.
Not only does that LOTR footnote exist but there's a callback to it IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH?
Seriously, no. Even if anything they argued was a thing, there's plenty of time to deal with it before the next election.
"We're so cuckoo for cocopuffs that we've forgotten how to do even relatively simple legal analysis."
YOU TWO SEDITIOUS DINGBATS ARE NOMINALLY LAWYERS!!
Why are you talking about having the marksman-aviator-assclown help you with a basic legal task????
No. You can not use purported injuries to potential plaintiffs as a basis for demanding relief.
No. That does not change if you sneak in the capital letter.
The only named plaintiff in a nutso lawsuit brought against literally every lawmaker by Texas lawyer Paul Davis (of Capitol riot fame) was also arrested for bringing guns to Philadelphia to "inspect" the ballots. But: No record of him voting in North Carolina. Sworn affidavit \U0001f447 pic.twitter.com/E9Ggn8BQ6r
— Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) January 21, 2021
But Gondor.
They have no clue what they're talking about and it's painfully obvious.
They also included a proposed TRO. And it's even more bonkers (that's a term of art) than the motion.
https://t.co/THSEVgsMwa
THIS IS A PROPOSED ORDER NOT AN ACTUAL ONE.
It's written as if it's drafted by the court, but it is not (and never will be) a court order. Writing proposed orders is, in general, normal. It's this specific proposed order that's pure bat guano.
More from Mike Dunford
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.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
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.
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.
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.
Link: https://t.co/oOJZD1F4x2
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) January 4, 2021
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.
More from Politics
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.
Michael van der Veen begins Trump's defense: "The article of impeachment now before the Senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance" pic.twitter.com/xRaZHEPIaC
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
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
WATCH: Trump's defense plays nearly 10 minutes of clips showing Democrats using the word "fight," to defend Trump using the word "fight" about 20 times in his speech to supporters before the Capitol riot began https://t.co/YUg7sgxuDX pic.twitter.com/3eMNp7E2S2
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 12, 2021
“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”
So close.
