See my thread from last night.

Technically what Judge Brann did was grant the defendant's motion to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss is what a defendant brings at the start of a lawsuit to get rid of totally frivolous claims so the court doesn't have to waste time.

It's usually hard to win on a motion to dismiss because courts prefer to see the evidence and decide on the merits.

To win on a motion to dismiss, the lawsuit as filed has to be so fatally defective so that there is no point having a trial or hearing.

For example, suppose I sue you on the claim that you are ugly and therefore you owe me $1 million dollars.

There are a few problems with that.

The main problem, in legal terms, is that I have failed to state a cause of action.

So you file a motion to dismiss. The judge looks at my pleadings (my complaint) and says, "Even if what she alleges is true, she is not entitled to relief."

IOW, even if it's true that you are very ugly, I am not entitled to $1 million.

So no point going to trial.

It's hard to win because courts liberally construe the complaints. All you have to do is allege ANYTHING that entitles you to relief, and you get to move forward.

Sometimes a complaint (the document that kicks off the lawsuit) does have an error, but one that can be fixed.

In that case, the judge gives you leave to file an amended complaint.

This judge said NOPE, you cannot even file an amended complaint.

That's the "dismissed with prejudice" part. The complaint was so defective he didn't allow for refiling.

That is a 🔥🔥🔥(ouch)

As a strategic matter, if a complaint has defects that can be fixed easily, defendants may not file a motion to dismiss because that just allows the plaintiffs to clean up the complaint and strengthen it.

So to have your complaint dismissed with prejudice = frivolous.

Other questions I'm getting can probably be answered in this thread I wrote last night ⤵️
(there is overlap)

I'll just put this here: Team Trump appealed to the Third Appellate district court:…

They're asking to be able to file an amended complaint in the lower court.

In other words, they're appealing the "dismissed with prejudice" part.

They are not asking for an order to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying the results of the election, which should happen tomorrow.

They're asking for the briefing to be expedited so that their claims can be heard in the lower court by December 8th.

What's totally weird is what they hope to get out of this.

Given what the lower court said about their claims, and given what they want to add (more equal protection, civil rights stuff) there is no way the lower court judge will rule in their favor. Just no way.

If they get their way, they get to file an amended complaint in the lower court, at which time the defendants will file another motion to dismiss (because it's clear from this request that the amended complaint will be as frivolous).

Even if the lower court allows them a hearing where they can present their evidence, we're looking at mid-December (if things go the speed of a locomotive.)

They'll lose. Then they'll appeal to the Third Appellate District Court.

By the time they get to the Supreme Court, Biden will be sworn in.

So you know what? This is all theater.

It's a stunt.

They want to be able to present bogus evidence in court for the headlines and to keep people focused on their bogus claims.

Ha! I called the court by the name of the California appellate court. Habit.

They appealed the motion to dismiss. If they win, they go back to the lower court, where they'll lose again.

Then they'll have to appeal again.
Think of it as a yo-yo.

Do you know more about appellate and civil procedure than you ever wanted to know? 🤓
That's what's totally weird. They didn't ask.

Did they forget?
Did they not want to ask and get rejected which would make people say 'what's the point.'

Will they rush to court tomorrow with an amended motion asking for it?

• • •

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

Keep Current with Teri Kanefield

Teri Kanefield 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!


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 @Teri_Kanefield

23 Nov
Here's the filing in which (among other things) they ask the court to stay the certification in PA pending appeal.…
I attached the rules of appellate procedure explaining that the request must first be made at the trial court (which they didn't do.) Image
The other part of this is that the certification is at 7 tonight. The rules require that all parties be given reasonable notice. Image
Yeah, and the TRO couldn't be filed in the district court because the district court THREW OUT THE ENTIRE LAWSUIT on a motion to dismiss, which is what is being appealed.

They're asking for a chance to refile in the lower court.
Read 4 tweets
23 Nov
I see 2 possibilities after Jan:

💠The Trump-FOX-GOP remains united and we have deeper divisions between those who embrace truth and those who embrace lies

💠When the GOP tries to move on and looks to a 2024 candidate not named Trump, the Trumps attack them and the GOP splits
You see, the question for the GOP is who controls the voters. A few decades ago, the GOP made the mistake of outsourcing voter mobilization. They teamed up with FOX and the NRA, who got the voters to the polls. So FOX and the NRA control the voters, which gives them power. . .
. . . over the voters. (That insight on GOP voter mobilization is from Yale political scientist @Jacob_S_Hacker and Berkeley political scientist Paul Pierson.

This gives FOX power over candidates, which as forced candidates to adopt more extreme positions.

Right now. . . Image
Read 11 tweets
22 Nov
The problem here is that Trump lost on a motion to dismiss, not on the merits.

So what goes up on appeal is whether the case should have been dismissed.

If the Third Circuit also rules FOR Trump the ruling is that the lower court was incorrect in dismissing the case . . .

. . . which means the case goes back to the lower court for a hearing.

If the Third Circuit rules AGAINST Trump, and the case goes to the Supreme Court, the issue is whether the case should have been dismissed.

If SCOTUS rules FOR Trump. . .
. . . it means the lower court must grant a trial.

So Trump gets a hearing. Even if things go very quickly, this will take weeks. At the end, if Trump wins, he gets a hearing, which also takes time.

So Trump's email was malarkey.
Read 9 tweets
21 Nov
They're filing these lawsuits believing the courts will hand the election to Trump.

It's deeply cynical, springing from the belief that anyone who wins does so by cheating and rule of law is an illusion.

The GOP attitude: "Trump is a liar and a cheat, but he's OUR liar."
To see it as destroying rule of law, you have to believe rule of law exists and is possible.

We see it destroying rule of law and taking away our votes.

They (on the other hand) see widespread voting as "corruption," usurping white power.
Anti-democratic forces have been with us since the beginning. They were pro-slavery. They were pro-Jim Crow. They believed in women in the home.

They read the Constitution as establishing these things because they read the Constitution as intended in 1789.
Read 4 tweets
19 Nov
The thing to notice from Tweets like these (@marcorubio and @LindseyGrahamSC) is that it's now a badge of honor for members of the Trump-Fox-GOP to be criticized by the media and the left.

Similarly, convictions are a badge of honor: Flynn and others are given a hero's welcome.
Not at all. It looks to me like the ultimate defiance. They actually rejoice in their defiance.

They consider themselves heroes for bucking rules and norms and laws.

Convictions and criticism (for them) enhance their status as victims.
They're breaking laws they don't believe should exist.

Their hatred of the "deep state" is hatred of the regulatory agencies that hamper the personal liberty of white men.

They see convictions (and criticism) as a "corrupt" society out to get the true champions of America.
Read 7 tweets
19 Nov
Hungarian scholar Balint Magyar offers a theory that explains why the US is holding out against the same tactics that caused other countries to collapse into autocracy.

His theory also explains why comparisons across nations doesn't always work.
While writing about post-communists mafia states, he talked about the “big bang” theory:

He says that the “conditions preceding the democratic big bang have a decisive role in the formation of the system.”

Here's how I understand the theory (to use Russia as an example)

At the time of the Russian Big Bang (early 1990s, when a Democracy struggled to be born) the Communist Party had a monopoly on power and resources.

Read 7 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!