This brings an end to the district level saga in Pennsylvania. It turns out that nonsense claims with no evidence do not play quite as well in Federal Court as they do on Twitter and on television news.
I recall a certain Trump lawyer asserting Judge Brann was thrilled with Giuliani and his performance.
Reader, these are not the sorts of things a federal judge tosses in an opinion ordinarily — and they do not indicate happiness with legal work product.
When you sue a giant number of people and file an (I think) over-length reply brief, this is not the right tone.
OH WHY DID NO ONE EVER THINK OF THIS. If you just *assert* something is irregular, the presumption of irregularity no longer applies! Genius.
(Also, this “Contrary to _____,...” is very weird phraseology.)
I’m really not sure this argument works the same way when you amend a complaint to REMOVE a theory as when you don’t name it with precision in the first place. You intentionally removed the theory. To fail to address that...