Hello, followers of the litigation antics of Rudy "the normal kind" Giuliani - new filing.

It's styled as a memorandum of law in support of their 2nd Amended Complaint. This is strange because that was filed with a memorandum in support days ago.

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
So let's dig in and try and figure out what's going on here.

After the now-infamous hearing on the 17th, the following briefing schedule was set out. As you can see, the motion for leave to amend was due at 5 pm on the 18th.

Today is the 20th, and time is still linear.
And, in fact, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend on the 18th. It was 10 pages long and had the stuff you'd expect from a memorandum in support.

In fact, the filed it twice on the 18th because they screwed up the first time and had to re-do their homework.
And, reviewing the docket, there's been no opposition filed (unsurprising, since the judge told the defense they didn't need to respond).

So why do we have a memorandum today that's not called for in the scheduling order? Let's take a look.
First of all, Rudy really seems to have taken the criticism about not signing the 2nd Amended Complaint to heart, because he's either submitting 5 pages, 4 of which are blank, or he's taking the novel approach of signing both at the start and end of the document.
The first paragraph of this memorandum is a bit confusing.

They're drawing the court's attention to a very important argument that only ripened after [WHICH??] Amended Complaint was filed, but the best place to do that was a different motion that they already filed?
November 17th was - and this is something I know because I looked at a calendar and because time is linear - before November 18th. Which was the date when they submitted and resubmitted their 2nd Amended Complaint.

So why is this coming up now?
The next paragraph is - in addition to being misleading and not terribly persuasive - more about the Nov 17th decision. That's the same Nov 17th decision that the judge called Rudy's attention to during the Nov 17th hearing.
And they never actually explicitly say anywhere - because I've now looked more than once - what this "important, potentially dispositive issue" is, or why it's important, or why it's potentially dispositive.
So as far as I can tell, this is a filing with something that could and should have gone into one or both of the major filings that Rudy's elite strike farce has submitted in the last two days, poorly drafted, and submitted without explanation.
And that's all I can tell you. Why this was filed today I have no idea.
Usually I'd mercilessly mock a response like this (screenshot in case it's deleted), but:

Seriously, Rudy - y'all might want to think about it. Can't make things worse than they already are.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @questauthority

21 Nov
THREAD:
Good evening, followers of Rudy's judicial hijinks and other interested partes. Trump v. Boockvar - the "The Normal Kind" case - just got tossed out, with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Anyone up for a liveteet? Great, let's get started:

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
I sometimes skim before livetweets, but I'm starting this one cold - I didn't even read the snipped that @j_remy_green posted.

I did, however, see the docket. Dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend suggests that nothing about the case impressed the judge. Image
We got the punchline from the docket, so there's no need to jump to the end. We can start at the beginning.

The start of the memorandum makes it clear that this addresses only the motions to dismiss - which makes sense. If defendants prevail on this (and we know they did)... Image
Read 78 tweets
21 Nov
Here's a short thread for the nonlawyers on just how monumentally, inexplicably, thoroughly stupid this particular oopsie @LLinWood's lawyers made was:

Citing a case that is bad law is easy. If you are not a lawyer.

If you are a lawyer, it is very very hard indeed.

Here's why:
I was - technically - not taught how to determine if a case was still good law during my first year in law school.

That's because the basics - which lawyers call "Shepardizing" for reasons we won't get into now - were taught during orientation, before 1L officially started.
Here's how that process works.

Step 1: I jot down the case citation. I'll just use the numbers, not the name here - 985 F.2d 1471.

Step 2: I fire up Westlaw (or Lexis). Image
Read 8 tweets
20 Nov
Actually, Lin, I was listening. It was a very clear oral ruling.

You lost the TRO motion because you had no standing to bring the case.

You also lost the TRO motion because you had no likelihood of success on the merits because you failed to state a claim.

You also...
...lost the TRO motion because you had no likelihood of success on the merits because the judge found on the record that the consent agreement is consistent with GA law.

You also lost the TRO motion because you had no likelihood of success on the merits because the judge...
...found that the consent agreement doesn't result in disparate impacts of any kind, and is actually consistent with the statewide guidance you claimed to be seeking.

You also lost the TRO motion because of laches - you had 8 months to sue over the consent agreement and didn't.
Read 7 tweets
19 Nov
I'm listening to the L Lin Wood hearing - won't livetweet.

But I will say this:
I'd love to play poker with Lin's lead attorney.
Youch. Mr. Smith was stammering so hard the judge had to yell to get a word in edgewise.
(OK, maybe I'll livetweet a tiny bit.)
Read 123 tweets
19 Nov
The new, and only remaining, Trumpian strategy is to try to use confusion to run out the clock and make states fail to certify. This is VERY unlikely to succeed, but there will likely be a post-Thanksgiving litigation blitz in states where they're voluntarily dismissing now.
We're already seeing some of this in how the Trumpistas are proceeding in Pennsylvania. Late filings, multiple amended complaints, deleting and restoring claims, arguing things not in pleadings, and generally attempting to run out the clock.
Judges dislike sanctions motions, and the safe harbor timeline makes Rule 11 difficult, but this "litigation" strategy seems to be the *exact* thing that 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is intended to prevent, and I'd dearly love to see @marceelias and his team push for sanctions on this basis.
Read 8 tweets
19 Nov
Like most of the copyright twitter and lawtwitter people who have been asked about this, I'm utterly appalled by Disney's conduct here. #DisneyMustPay for real.

That's the moral take. Legally, it's difficult to make firm statements based on the limited information available.
The issue is that this is more a contractual dispute than a copyright one. It appears that, as is often the case with tie-ins and spinoffs, Alan Dean Foster does not own the copyright in his works. This was almost certainly established when the books were first written.
(We see something similar in the unfolding dispute between Dragonlance authors Weis and Hickman and WOTC - they created, but do not own, much of the Dragonlance universe.)
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!