Good morning, electoral lunacy followers. Welcome to what I suspect will be the 2020 equivalent of the Orly Taitz litigation: Sidney Powell Sues Everoyen For LAL Of Teh ThInGs

This is the first of what will (hopefully) be a limited number of #Kraken-related threads.
That said, I doubt the number will be limited. I think Sidney Powell is the Orly Taitz of the Biden Administration.

And I doubt I've acquired enough maturity since my younger birther-watching days to ignore these. So, yes, at least for cases with public dockets, I'm here.
We've got two filings so far - a Michigan one (King v Whitmer) that has been filed, and a Georgia one (Pearson v Kemp) that cannot presently be located on PACER.

This may be because there are parallel Quorts not in the system but maybe it just didn't get filed.
Here's how I'm going to deal with that - I'll start livetweeting King (the filed one) in a little bit, after I do some turkey prep. I'll do that in this thread, but probably even slower and more interrupted than usual - so you might just want to bookmark and come back later.
Tonight, if there's interest, I might be both willing and able to stream a read of the (maybe unfiled) GA case on Twitch tonight.
(Seriously, my choice won't necessarily be based on the majority outcome of the poll - if there's enough interest I'll stream regardless.)
I'll pick up with this shortly. At the start, I'll note that it's not clear from the caption whether she's suing Benson in her capacity as both Sec'y of State and Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers or if Benson and the Board are different entities, because what are Oxford commas?
Be back in a bit - the bird needs attention.
OK - the bird is in and the first family Zoom of the day is concluded, so I can pick back up.

When last we left the heroic #Kraken, we were looking at a cover page that spelled "district" two different ways and sues the Board Ofstate Canvassers. Let's see where we go from here.
(By the way - we've got some in-house social isolation going here, so it's a strange Thanksgiving. So thanks to those who asked, but it's actually pretty easy to do this today.)
Right - so we start by saying that we're definitely pleading fraud, so that will make for some interesting issues when the defendants, if ever properly served, mention Rule 9.
For the nonlawyers - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 says that your complaint needs to meet certain requirements above and beyond what's normally required in a complaint.
Honestly, this first paragraph is distinguishable from something Orly Taitz would have filed only in that the spelling and grammar are marginally better. Right down to the references to eye witnesses and expert witnesses.
So if you see me, in the course of these threads, start referring to "witlesses" and "daffydavits," don't credit me with originality. These are terms used in the birther watching community back in the day.
Based on this footnote, we're gonna be lucky if we only see two Krakenings. Sounds like we could see up to four - and possibly more as desperation mounts.

Oh joy.
And she's reinforcing this as a fraud case in the next paragraph, too, so, yeah, it'll be fun to see her respond to the Rule 9 issue in her response to the inevitable motions to dismiss.
BRB - gonna fire up Westlaw and see if I can figure out what this is about, because based on Cornell LII it's a statutory section that doesn't exist.
OK, I found it. It's 52 USC §20701. I was confused, because Title 50 is "War and National Defense" and only goes up to like §4852.
This footnote is also very much in line with Orly Taitz's filings. This is FN 2. The reader has no idea what "Dominion" is, let alone why they have logs, and the final "incorruptible audit log" thing is also unexplained.

She's assuming that the reader lives on her planet.
Alleging that the state government is engaged in an extensive and deliberate criminal conspiracy will go over well. It's also Taitzian.

Also, I wonder what makes Detroit "especially egregious."
Making it clear that these are definitely frauding and ballot-stuffing claims.

So it looks like they finally found a lawyer unethical enough to sign a pleading with this stuff.
So she's claiming sufficient specificity based on her "testimony incorporated within" - so this could be interesting. By which I mean entertaining.
I think Dominion probably will need to find a way to respond to all this - the nutball right are making them toxic in ways that will undoubtedly harm their business.
For clarity: by "all this" I mean the full set of outrage peddling and scapegoating, not simply this filing.
Wait, the "MichiganBoard of State Canvassers"? I thought she was suing the "Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers."
So we've got a "Redacted Declaration" as Exhibit 1, with no indication that an unredacted version will be forthcoming. That's clearly the sign of a very serious lawyer with great familiarity with law and other lawyerings.
We're also seeing allegations that vote fraud in Michigan in 2020 is connected with a dictator who died in 2013.

I will be *delighted* if defense lawyers snarkily request that the court take judicial notice that Hugo Chavez has been dead for 7 years.
I mean I'm not 100% sure that it's a fact that can be the subject of judicial notice really, but it's also the kind of thing that's so worth a try.
Also, did she spill something on her keyboard that destroyed her space bar? And if so, was it whatever substance she was consuming that fueled this "pleading"?
OK, so now we're quoting from the "DominionWhistleblower Report." Which indicates that the person who drafted the report was a "direct witness."

I'll be right back - I've got to go look at Exhibit 1 and see who this is, because if there's a deposition it's gonna be lit.
What

the

sweeteverlivingfuck

is this even?????
OhmyGOD

She REDACTED THE DECLARANT'S NAME?????????
I just checked the docket - there's no indication anything was filed under seal. There's no indication there's any intent to file anything under seal.

Her leadoff document, which documents an alleged international conspiracy, doesn't disclose who the affiant IS?
OK. For the nonlawyers, let me explain.

The American justice system is adversarial. That is a fundamental thing. It's like trial by combat but with less blood and more snark.

This means that the opposing party gets to - and this is important - challenge your testimony.
When you put forward a witness, the other side gets to challenge their testimony. That can't effectively be done when you don't know who they are. (This is above and beyond the more fundamental issue that you can't judge credibility without knowing who is making the allegation.)
If your witness needs to remain hidden due to legitimate concerns for safety and so on, there are ways that can happen. But those ways do not include hiding their identity from the court and the other side's lawyers. There are procedures. None of them seem to be happening here.
The submission of this document is, to be blunt, sanctionable. It'll probably slide in the interests of a speedy GTFOOMCR* but it should be sanctioned.

* the final half of that stands for "of my court room." You should be able to get the rest.
But it gets even better - because, apparently, her witless is "of sound mine."
John 11:35
Back to the main document. I'll look at the rest of that drek later.

So we've got a nameless affiant - actually, that should be 'affiant,' the scare quotes are virtually mandatory - alleging that Smartmatic engaged in a conspiracy with Chavez.

Did she submit a declaration?
Sorry for the delay - basting
Right. So I went looking to see if Powell (or any other attorney) submitted a declaration to accompany the exhibits. I don't see one.

I do note that the exhibit numbering seems to go "8, 9, 10, 101, 102" which might be a numbering system somewhere but if so I don't know where.
So as far as we know, this Exhibit 1 is just something she found on the Internet (I fear this may be literally true) and not actually something she can submit as testimony without just utterly shattering her Rule 11 obligations to the court.
Truly we live in the dumbest of timelines.
This is off-the-rails nuts. Now we're jumping from Smartmatic to Dominion - with a single, lonely, inexplicably italicized "of" as a bonus - with no explanation of the link. And we're turning to the "Declaration of HarriHursti" (Who may or may not actually be "Harri Hursti").
There is, of course, no explanation of who Harri Hursti is, whether this purports to be expert or fact testimony, what the basis is for either, and if I had printed this I would have just thrown the file physically across the room and ohgod it's only page 4.
So let's look at Exhibit 107 - which turns out to be RECYCLED WITHOUT EXPLANATION FROM A DIFFERENT CASE? THIS ISN'T HER OWN WITNESS? WHAT THE CRAP??
Seriously, what the hell is this other case even? What's its relevance? Why was this declaration submitted? This is purported expert testimony. Has this person been accepted as an expert and if so in what and for what purpose?
You cannot - I feel like this should go without saying - just slap an exhibit label on random crap and dump it into the docket and expect to be taken seriously, let alone have something accepted as evidence. This. Is. Not. How. Anything. Works.
Also, these are statements that appear to allege that bad things can happen, they are not even offered as evidence that bad things did happen.
Paragraph 9 is special. Just loads and loads of factual assertions without citations to anything, including her less-than-52-card-deck of daffydavits.
Seriously, this is a paragraph jam-packed with what we refer to in the trade as "conclusory allegations," which is a lawyerly way of saying, "yeah, you're just pulling this stuff right out of your ass."
Making insinuating statements like this to suggest wrongdoing or malfeasance that you cannot prove does not play well in court. At all.
Either they disregarded those concerns or they decided that they had been sufficiently addressed between the time the "Texas Board of elections" [sic] rejected the system and Michigan accepted it.

Neither scenario gives rise to a claim of any kind.
Also, the rejection by Texas needs a cite, the "disregarded all the concerns" is a conclusory allegation and just sweet lord what am I reading here?
So she's submitted an unauthenticated paper of some kind from somewhere without submitting the CV of the alleged "expert" (who she hasn't apparently retained)?
How -- just how -- just what the hell - HOW DO YOU EVEN?
Exhibit 2 is a paper from somewhere. That is all we can say about it. There is no indication of source on it anywhere, so it's impossible to tell whether it's a preprint or peer reviewed, or even whether it's from a book or a journal.

And it's printed in landscape. Badly.
This is absolutely bloody disgraceful legal work.
Oh yeah - and there's no PINCITE for the quote, so if I want to find the context I have to crawl through the whole landscape-printed with cut-off footers paper to find it.

Courts just love that.
And - just putting the cherry on top of the nuts on top of the whipped cream on top of this stale turd sundae - the paper hasn't been OCRed.
I can't find it. Not only can't I find it, I can't find anywhere in there that discuses rewriting a program or physically hacking. And the authors - there are more than one - seem to refer to themselves in the first-person plural; the alleged quote is first-person singular.
That's not to say that the quote isn't in the paper, of course. It might be in the parts that were cut off when the landscape thing happened, but I'm really starting to doubt it's in there.
Oh good. Now we've got an "expert" who is at least being claimed as someone who knows they are providing evidence for the plaintiffs.
Except that when I go to "Exhibit 101" I don't find a "Ramsland Affidavit." Instead, I find whatever the hell this is supposed to be.

Clown. Damn. Shoes. Give them back to the clowns, Sidney.
Anyway, hell with trying to find that - it's not 10, 102, or 103.

Back to the main turdburger.
WHAT DOMINION "COMPUTER FRAUD"?? You didn't allege any computer fraud by Dominion yet. You alleged that some company you allege was some kind of predecessor to Dominion engaged in fraud, but not that Dominion did. And everything else you claim is just that they're insecure.
I swear, Dominion might have to sue her sorry ass before all this is done. They're getting ACORNed right out of business by these nimrods.
OK, so a lot of these are the same tired allegations that have already been found wanting by, at this point, many other courts.

I guess at least half this complaint is a clip show?
More allegations here of criminal misconduct. No citations to support them yet.
I keep drafting parts of a response in my head while I'm doing this.

The phrase "are, frankly, incoherent" keeps popping up.
And can I just say that indenting the damn paragraph numbers and the list letters exactly the same way doesn't improve the readability of this filing - even before all the missing spaces?
OK. And one more paragraph/list making assertions about the facts they claim they can prove.
I'm going to take a quick break for some more cooking, but we'll be back to continue with the "Expert Witness Testimony" section shortly.

This is so awful.
Something that occurred to me:
We're 8 pages in and we've not heard a word about the actual plaintiffs in this case, or how they were injured, or what causes of action they're asserting.
This looks like a cursor mark. But it's not. It's a | that's there because no particular reason.
I was going nuts trying to figure out why I couldn't move the cursor before I realized it was just yet another inexplicable typo.
There are some factual allegations in here that seem very unlikely to withstand scrutiny of any kind. It'll be interesting to see how this gets handled - I doubt (even without looking) that there will be standing, so probably there won't be a hearing of any kind.
(Or, rather, I doubt there will be an evidentiary hearing. There may be one on the inevitable motion to dismiss.)
Before we plunge in further, I'm hearing that the metadata shows that this was written, at least in part, by one Juli Haller. If so, that name seems to match a current government lawyer with deep ties to the Trump Administration, including work on the 2016 Transition.
I mean just what the hell, what the hell, what the total complete and epic hell, what in all seven damn circles of hell is this.

Never mind just our hell - this is "what the hell in all the hells in the original D&D Immortal Realms thing with all those hells" territory.
"As explained and demonstrated in the accompanied redacted declaration"??? There's ANOTHER redacted declaration? What the fuckityfuckingfuck are these people smoking??? Whatever it is, they've clearly had either too much or not enough.
Also, how the hell does SAM missile system electronic intelligence gathering make you an expert on voting system or give you insight into what agents acting on behalf of China and Iran are doing?
Also, the 305th MI appears to be - wait for it -

an Initial Entry Training unit.
And I just skimmed the affidavit briefly. It appears to be incoherent AF.
And we've got some other "expert" of unexplained origins or qualifications who seems willing to also testify to potential tampering of some kind.

Allllllllrighty then.
And holy crap I just scrolled down and all 75 pages of this is complaint?? I just assumed there were more zibits at the end.

So much for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief". Fed R Civ P 8(a)(2).
OK - sorry for the delay. We worked out a food swap in lieu of having company over, so some of my Turkey (which is absolutely SPECTACULAR this year, I'm so happy) was just traded for some awesome-looking vegetable dishes.
Moving on, we reach the "Jurisdiction Andvenue" section of the complaint. Claiming federal question jurisdiction, which isn't a surprise.
But in all seriousness -
How do you submit something this un-proofread? It's not like you didn't have time. It's been three damn weeks since the election.

And, yeah, copypasta from pdf can do this, but you see it when it's happening. So how do you not fix it?
Also, this is argument and not, as far as I can tell, part of jurisdiction and venue. At all.
And we are now 10 pages in and only just getting to the section where you explain who your parties are.
In fairness, she's got plaintiffs here who are allegedly nominees for Elector, so she can plausibly get past the injury-in-fact prong of the standing inquiry.
This is strange phrasing: "plurality of 154,188 votes." I'd expect "lead" or something similar. Especially since Biden is over 50.6% in Michigan.
The other plaintiffs are voters and "Republican Party Chairman" for their counties, but they don't seem to be suing on behalf of the party. Standing is very questionable just on the injury prong.
And the rest of the parties section is such an incoherent copypasta disaster that it hurts my eyes to look at it.

However, for nonlawyers:
Suing a state can be tricky, and even experienced lawyers can sometimes accidentally sue the wrong officials or agencies.
I don't know if these are the right officials or entities. Wouldn't be surprised either way. We'll see what the motions to dismiss say.
Going to take another break - time to eat.

And, critically, to drink.
That was a wonderful meal, I'm finally completely happy with my brine recipe for the turkey, and I've got part of a bottle of a really very good Bordeaux in me, part in my glass, and the rest in the bottle next to me.

Let's get back to it, shall we?
I believe that, when we left, we'd just finished dealing with the parties section, leaving us not even 20% of the way through this dribble. Let's pick up from there.
But, if you're wondering (or even if you're not):
A bunch of water, 15 cloves of garlic with the ends cut, fresh sage, rosemary, and thyme - bruised enough to let the oils out, and salt & honey to saturation). Brine 48 hours. Roast at 350 per weight w/ lemon & herbs in cavity.
Seriously, I take my turkey seriously and this is (naturally, since no family were here to visit) the best it's ever come out.

But back to why you're here.
AND FFS!!!

"Statement of Facts"???? What the hell were the first 9 pages with all that stuff about witnesses and expert witnesses? The statement of bloody fantasy?
Also, this statement of facts has little in the way of facts - barring statements like "the governor isn't a legislature."

Unless, anyway, this "I. Legal Background" section is also part of the statement of facts. In which case the headers are strange.

Lemme look at the ToC.
*Sighs*

There is no table of contents.

Because WHY WOULD THERE BE??? IT'S ONLY A 75-PAGE DOCUMENT!
Also, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to reject my null hypothesis that this document is the best thing that was produced by the room full of monkeys and typewriters that they've had working on this since election day.
Seriously, I do not understand. Were they circulating drafts in pdf instead of doc and cutting and pasting instead of using Word's built-in collaboration tools? I do not understand how this can be this bad.
I--------

I-------

Just.

The thing that makes this true art, however, is the "whethermaliciously undertaken or by incompetence."
This is just insulting the court at this point. It's clearly submitted by someone who has no respect for their profession AND DESERVES TO RECEIVE NONE FROM THEIR PROFESSION.
You are the lawyer for the sitting President of the United States of America. Act. Like. It.

FFS.
When I was in law school I did some pro bono helping a team that was representing President Obama in his personal capacity in a birther case in Mississippi. We agonized over every filing no matter how unimportant. And were mortified by the small number of things that slipped by.
Because things will slip by. That happens. But NEVER would we have EVER submitted something like this. We had too much respect for ourselves and our client to even CONSIDER filing something like this.
I cannot easily read Paragraph 43. Or is this WORD 43? And the start of 44 is no better. What. The. Hell.
Oops - accidentally forked the thread. It picks up here:
This is literally unreadable. They managed to run the words together so badly it screwed up the justification and they still didn't notice.

I'm just going to skip past this, since they clearly don't care if it's read. They should hope the court has more patience than I do.
No opening quote for the quote, along with no spaces. The quote itself is unnecessarily repetitive, and why are they providing the statutory cite at both the start and end of this?
Why didn't they just submit thoroughly-used toilet paper to the court instead of this? It would have more honestly conveyed their level of respect for the court, the legal profession, and themselves.
It's not that they didn't proofread this that has me so worked up. It's that they so very clearly didn't bother to read it at all. Not even once.
This is just completely unreadable. It's not words. It's letters in a row.

I should not have to sit down with a printout and a ruler to read your bloody complaint.
This is wonderful, because it's art. You need to go through two separate steps to unwind this disaster. First, we re-add spaces, hopefully in the right places. But when we do, we find - well - follow me, if you dare:
"three categories of individuals, a "board of inspectors," a" board of county canvassers," and the "board of state canvassers."

So is that three categories of individuals PLUS a board of inspectors, a board of county canvassers, and a board of state canvassers?
Or are those the three categories. And if they're the three categories, why are you using the singular? Is there only one board of inspectors? Is there only one board of county canvassers?
This filing is a trash onion.
I still don't know if there's one board of inspectors in the universe, one in the galaxy, one in the state, one in the nation, one in the state, one in the county, or one per precinct.

And because I can't read this I have no idea - still - what the board of inspectors does.
At this point, as far as I can tell, we're just dumping statutes into some section of the complaint - I still don't know if this is supposed to be a facts section or a governing law sections - for no apparent purpose except sucking minutes from the lives of the reader.
Honestly, I'd almost rather be on the 6-fingered man's table having life sucked away than be doing it this way.
Right - where was I? Ah, yes. Back to pointless and massive block quotes with some truly wonderful examples of the clash between their desire for justified text and their tragic inability to find the biggest key on the keyboard.
I just loved the bit in that last screenshot where they wound up with a "word" that was 1 letter too long to fit on two lines.
And why did you talk about the "Michigan board of state canvassers" [sic] in a paragraph which, granted, was written in standard English, before going back to talk about the County Board. And, again, one singular, or one per county?
Why am I talking about Sidney Powell's Word Processing Massacree with full orchestration and five-part harmony and stuff like that, and other phenomenon instead of the merits?

Because the last like 10 pages of this complaint are all things that should have been boilerplate.
These pages - first of all, like 3/4th of it seems totally damn unnecessary - but we should have gotten through them in minutes. There should have been nothing of note here. They should have been simple.
Anyway - more of this seems to set out the legal framework, in nearly unreadable format, and for ends that are not yet clear. And that's all I have to say about that.
OK - so they're suing the state board but not the individual members, and they're not suing the Wayne County board of county canvassers [sic] at all. Nor are they suing any of the individual members. So no idea why the names matter.
I went to see Exhibit 1 as directed. It's not "affidavits of election challengers." It's the "declaration" by the Unknown Chavez Conspiracististist.

But who cares if you make the judge and clerks go hunting through hundreds of pages to find what you mean, amirite?
By the way, I mentioned some of the high points of the first two pages of the complaint to my wife over dinner. My wife, a licensed professional (albeit of a different profession) said, and I quote, "is she impaired?"
I'm reading this heading and trying to figure out if I'm still in the fact section of the complaint, some other section of a complaint, some other section of some different document, or an epic work of Dadaist poetry.

And if it even matters.
And still with this formatting.

What the hell, again, still, and eternally is this? How do you do this? No, it's not something PACER randomly did to Sidney; PACER doesn't do that. This is something Sidney is inflicting on the universe. Why and how may remain eternal mysteries.
The phrase "uniformly throughout Michigan" is --

Sorry, that was a misquote - "uniformly throughoutMichigan" is doing a lot of work here. Unless she can point to something in Michigan law, that's not going to strictly be correct.
OK, so if I'm mentally inserting spaces in the right places, this is stuff intended to support another claim based on "meaningful access" - one that I think has been rejected by other Michigan courts already.
OHFORTHELOVEOFGOD

I'm trying to find a specific affidavit from the ones mentioned in here. But it's a 234-page pdf that hasn't been OCRed and NO PAGE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN IN THE CITATIONS FOR SPECIFIC AFFIDAVITS IN THIS EXHIBIT.

And the exhibit has no table of contents.
And some of them were grabbed from PACER in a different case and they're not in any kind of order, alphabetical or otherwise - What. The. Hell.
Screw it - can't find it. Hell with it. Let's move on.

By the way -
Nonlawyers, if you are wondering, YES. A judge can do exactly what I just did. Every court I'm familiar with has case law to the effect of "it's not the judge's job to hunt through the record."
If it's your critical evidence and the judge can't find it because you couldn't be bothered to properly identify and cite it?

Guess what? That's not the judge's problem. That's YOUR problem, and, worse, IT'S YOUR CLIENT'S PROBLEM.
OK, so, yeah - a lot of allegations that I think got made elsewhere and either withdrawn or tossed (or both, across multiple proceedings).
As far as I know, none of the plaintiffs is a "challenger." This may be a problem.
Same goes here, with the added caveat that there's not even an allegation here that the blocking only affected Republican challengers.
We've seen these allegations before - and some of them are probably swiped from the other case. These aren't things that give rise to federal constitutional claims under governing law.
I'm fairly sure most of these things have already been litigated; if so, I don't see much reason to think there's going to be a change in the result.
Same here, more or less. Also, my understanding is that poll challengers and poll watchers are quite different under Michigan law. Many of the affidavits in question - at least ones I could readily find in among the 200+ pages of drek - are from watchers.

michigan.gov/documents/SOS_…
For example, Braden Gaicobazzi says he challenged 35 ballots and the challenges were ignored. I found - eventually - his affidavit. He doesn't allege he was a challenger. If he was a watcher, he had no right to challenge, and his challenges were SUPPOSED to be ignored.
(The delay in posting that last tweet was due to the search for that one affidavit in the 234 page unindexed, unOCRed, and unsearchable pdf-O-daffydavits.)
This is likely to be more of the same, but I'll let the long-suffering lawyers for the State of Michigan, who are at least getting paid, figure this nonsense out.
So I'm reading this, and I go find the Seely affidavit. Which is easy to find because it's the first one in the stack but it's also handwritten. Reading this, it seems very very likely to me that this is a "watcher" not a "challenger" under MI law.
There's no explicit statement that the person is a "challenger," they - like many others who provided affidavits - showed up and were trained on the 4th, and there's no allegation that they were properly credentialed as a challenger.
If it turns out that Powell didn't bother to sort out who were challengers and who were watchers from her own witnesses, that's bad. If it turns out that Powell couldn't be bothered to even ask and is recycling allegations from elsewhere there may (and should) be hell to pay.
This is beautiful. Now she's alleging that the same person she said was a "challenger" was a "watcher" - apparently unaware that there is REALLY QUITE AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DIFFERENCE between them.
But who the hell needs to do legal research, I ask you - particularly before signing a pleading like this?
It's a bold move, not mentioning that the case you're citing that "raise[d] similar allegations" was one where the trial court ruled for the state and the plaintiff's appeals were unsuccessful. A bold move indeed.

Was "bold" the word I wanted?
Looks like we're recycling yet more thoroughly-debunked allegations.
Also, if your "most probative evidence" comes from someone who doesn't claim to have actually seen ballots come out of vans and just thinks the timing was coincidental, your case is just complete garbage.
And congratulations, signing attorneys, because this line of the pleading is an absolute f@&king lie, your witness claims nothing of the sort, you bloody liars.
This should read "the GLJC complaint, which has been thrown out by every court that the sorry-ass lawyers who brought it tried to submit it to, alleges..."
Seriously, using a dismissed complaint from a different case brought by different parties in a different court as evidence is exactly the kind of thing that I never thought a licensed attorney not named Orly Taitz would attempt.
This is beautiful - they're not even quoting this guy's affidavit IN the other case, they're quoting what the DISMISSED complaint in the other case said about that affidavit.
This isn't even lawyering at the level of Akiva's analogy with the doctor who walks in, says he's going to take your temperature, and puts a stethoscope on your forehead. This is Harpo frigging Marxs, horn and all.
*Marx. Sorry, Harpo, you were a legend, no disrespect intended.
Oh, good. The hearsay within hearsay post-it note makes another appearance. This is like a 2-bit-late-night-C-grade-horror-series vampire that won't stay staked.
And more of the same here.

Good grief. Just good grief. Just come on - these things have been out there for a while already.
And this isn't even eyewitness testimony, it's eyewitless speculation. How are you submitting this garbage to a court?
OK, we're back to incoherence and quotations from the dismissed complaint in the other case.
These are - still - things from other cases, mostly from people who seem to not actually have been challengers. And - you know what, I'm just going to quote from the last judge to look at most of these things:
I'm going to skip through the rest of these allegations. They're drafted in many cases so as to be unreadable, a considerable number of them are from affiants who misunderstood their role in the process and what they were seeing, and there relevance to this case is unclear.
Gonna walk the dog, back in a bit.
Most of the rest of this section (p. 32-35) is more of the same, and I'm running low on both time and tolerance to go through it, so we're going to skim ahead.
But this part is truly remarkable. And by remarkable, I mean sanctionable.

This is an affidavit that says, in essence, "hey, I saw some stuff I have no idea what but have an affidavit for your law and lawyerly lawsuit."
This whole complaint is what you'd expect if Q wandered into a courtroom and defecated on the judge's bench.
This thing - I have no idea what it is, and the report itself appears missing; the referenced Exhibit is three pages of table printout without an accompanying affidavit - is, just, you know what, I don't even know what to say about this because I've got no idea what it is.
I've seen more coherent "expert testimony" presented by Orly Taitz - including the time she tried to pass off the guy who wrote this as a signature analysis expert.
OK, I just went through ALL the exhibits and the "Dr. Briggs Report" is nowhere to be found. Nor can I find the information on the phone survey conducted by Braynard, nor can I find anything that explains why Briggs and not Braynard is being offered as an exhibit.
I did, however, discover that there is an exhibit that relates to Braynard.

They submitted this apparently partial Twitter thread as an exhibit.
So we're treated to a lengthy discussion of an "expert" report by someone about whom we know nothing, of unstated qualifications, reporting on a poll conducted by a third party - also of unknown qualifications.

We know nothing about anything about this analysis. It's crap.
But we are apparently expected to accept this as proof of a "much larger interstate fraudulent scheme rig [sic] the 2020 General Election for Joe Biden."
Family time. Back later.
OK. More alleged expert witness material, in the form of a "report" by someone with unclear qualifications who didn't sign his report, doesn't know how to prevent widow/orphan formatting issues but does talk a lot about 19th Century French bakeries.
I'm going to skip the rest of the garbage from this guy, because no way does it get any weight.
Next, we've got stuffs "compiled by Matt Braynard" (whoever that is; the complaint doesn't say who he is or identify his alleged qualifications) that is presented in the form of an unauthenticated printout of a Twitter thread.
I swear, even after all the time I spent reading birther pleadings, I could not have imagined that a lawyer would submit anything this completely deficient in any regard.
Next, we have stuff from Ramsland, whose ignorance not only encompasses the geography of the Great Lakes region but also apparently is ignorant of the concept that sometimes data is batched and uploaded in ways that don't coincide with the time things were counted.
Next up - the whole software update, combined with a bunch of "what if it happened elsewhere, too" stuff, combined with - you guessed it - zero absence of anything like that actually happening elsewhere because of course not.
Also, even after the insinuations and the Secret Squirrel Affidavit way back at the start of the complaint, these seem to be the only Dominion-related factual allegations.
This. Is. Not. The. Kind. Of. Absence. Of. Mistake. The. Rule. Is. Talking. About.

It's not. It's very not. It's totally not. Sweetjeebus - what are these nincompoopes ON?
Also, Paragraph 119 appears to end mid-sentence.

And, seriously, I've got no damn clue what this stuff is supposed to be offered to show. Just none whatsoever.
Whoops! I spoke too soon. More Dominion stuff, because why put all those allegations in one spot?
This seems to be allegations that might be intended to prove that the choice of the vendor could violate the United States Constitution? Not sure why else this is here.
More speculation here. More evidence not here.
It probably will come of as no surprise that the "raw data" that Ramsland purportedly relies on is nothing of the sort; it's a data feed that gets sent to the media.

Because of course it is.
There's evidence. There's strong evidence. And then there's StrongEvidence, which seems to be neigher strong nor evidence.
Because what is "StrongEvidence"? Apparently it's the dribblings of some total nutbar who doesn't get the whole "when one party discourages mail voting and another encourages it, the percentages will very probably be different."
And this bit is more from Goofy McDrool about how he - and at this point I don't care that Powell is misspelling her own witless's name - doesn't live on planet earth and doesn't understand how counting votes works.
None of this is evidence, and it's certainly not expert evidence. It's whatever expert evidence isn't.
No affidavit alone provides "more than sufficient basis to grant the relief" - we have an adversarial system. And Ramsland clearly wouldn't recognize "professional certainty" if it walked up and bit him on the ass.
More stuff here that says that Dominion can do stuff and no evidence here - including from whoever Watkins is, and I note that his evidence is allegedly found at "____" - that anything happened.
Seriously, she got some rando to apparently testify about what's in the USER MANUAL what the F@&K ARE THESE PEOPLE SMOKING????
Ohmygod - that's literally what this is - this is some total rando trying to testify about what is in the user manual. The guy doesn't even testify to ever having USED the software. This is literally some affidavit from some random person who says he, unlike everyone else, RTFM.
Wait - why the hell is this name ringing a bell?
HOLYMOTHERFUCKTHISISTHE8KUNGUY
They got an affidavit from a guy who is one of the leading suspects in the "who is Q" speculation as an "expert" on software he has apparently never used and fuckaduck I'm broken.
I'm just

I just

just

just

just just
just

Where is this even?
This is totally goatfucking insane.
I, for one, always cite statutory sections without bothering to say what TITLE they are found in.
Also:
Probably should go without saying, but the fact that there is a law requiring *PRESERVATION* of records doesn't mean there's a corresponding requirement to *CREATE* records.
And the fact that you think that Michigan shouldn't have bought Dominion stuff isn't a violation of your constitutional rights. At all. Even if Texas didn't buy it.
Also, no, you're not going to get to produce the name of your star witness only "in camera" (for nonlawyers, that means they want to show it to the judge but not the other side). Simply won't happen.
Oh, good.

A blank reference and messed up footnote formatting and different fonts because someone forgot to post text only.
The rest of pages 51-54 are more speculation about risks, without testimony that anything actually went wrong.

Waste of everyone's time.
So apparently their "former US Military Intelligence expert" who claims to have *checked notes* served in the initial entry training battalion but whose qualifications and record are otherwise unknown might be named or nicknamed "Spider" because what is consistent redaction?
Seriously, if it turns out this person signed an affidavit with an 8kun tag I'm going to officially lose it.
And I now think there's an actual chance that's what happened.
Smartmatic has some inventors from Serbia and this violates the American Constitution what?
Oh, good. "See Exh. ___" The threadnought deja vu I just wanted to have hit me today.
They're citing, as evidence in federal court, some guy who did an interview with Michelle Malkin - who as we all know is totes super-credible - claiming to have "infiltrated ANTIFA' and recorded some Dominion guy saying something shady.
But, now, after 55 pages of some of the most comprehensively and spectacularly legally lawyering I've seen, we're ready to start with the claims.
Count 1 - Elections and Electors clause.

I'll make this simple. No standing. Generalized grievance, no injury-in-fact to the plaintiffs, who are, like the defendants, not the state legislature.
The federal courts, as a whole, will not want to create federal jurisdiction for everyone who feels aggrieved by a state or local official's failure to follow state law perfectly. That would be madness.
Not only is there no particularized injury here, "disenfranchise all Michigan because the election allegedly wasn't perfect" isn't an available means of redress.
Count 2 - Equal Protection.
Problematic vote dilution claim. They're probably trying vote dilution because they can't allege vote denial, but as we saw in PA that's a problematic claim - especially where you can't show illegal votes WERE cast. And they can't.
But it's always fun to see how fast the hardcore Trumpists will throw anyone they've previously claimed to support under the nearest bus if remotely convenient.
They're trying to leverage a bunch of vague affidavits and allegations about things that could have happened into a claim that they did happen - and hoping that the judge won't notice (even after Defendants point out) that their "facts" don't actually support these allegations.
Trying to use allegations from a different case, where a judge actually heard from both sides and found these allegations to not be credible, without disclosing this to the judge, is ABSOLUTELY sanctionable.
It's a clear and indisputable violation of an attorney's duty of candor to the court. It's just blatantly unethical in absolutely every regard.

You cannot do stuff like that. It's VERY not allowed. It's COMPLETELY unethical.
For the nonlawyers:
Yes, a lawyer has a duty to the client. But we are officers of the court, and we have an absolute duty to not lie to or intentionally mislead the court.

Sidney Powell violated that duty in that paragraph.
This request for relief is entirely moot, and was entirely moot the day that the complaint was submitted.

Also: GOOD LUCK showing that the use of Dominion's software and devices violates the Constitution - which is literally what they're claiming in this count.
Also moot. Long moot.

Do they think the court has a Tardis?
I love the font change.

Also - all relief highlighted in the second screenshot is also moot. For those with small devices, that's items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

I cannot say whether item 2 is also moot because it does not seem to exist.
Count III. "Denial of Due Process On The Right to Vote"

Whatever that means.
Basically, a different swing at vote dilution. Same standing issues we saw in PA and GA.

Same opportunity for their lawyer to forget whether this is a procedural or substantive claim, too.
Enjoining certification is moot. Recount or recanvas is likely futile given that certification has occurred and the state processes for either challenging or requesting recounts weren't followed.
Count IV is "Wide-SpreadBallot Fraud"

And that's it. It's rare to see an absolutely literal failure to state a claim, but this kind of does. No potential source of legal relief is identified.

Court's gonna love this one.
This is seriously huge "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!" energy. Font change and all.

It's here so that this pathetic band of wannabe seditionists can say they brought a vote fraud claim to a court. Except they didn't - this doesn't count. You cannot do it this way.
Just telling a court "vote fraud" isn't a thing. And they know this.
This goes out the window for failure to state a claim, if it gets that far. (It may not. The court may throw all the federal claims out then decline to look at the state law claims.)
Why does it fail to state a claim? Simple. They've never alleged that there was a time when there wasn't at least one inspector from each party.
Probably no standing - these aren't the parties suing. And the eyewitness accounts mostly (if not entirely) fail to show that these were challengers rather than watchers.
Not clear what the remedy they're seeking is here, particularly since I believe these claims faired poorly when brought (by others) before state courts.
Not clear how a recount is a remedy. Not remotely clear - particularly given the Constitution - that a federal court could order a new election here.
As we've seen in PA, it's not apparent what "de-certification" would look like, how it would work, how a federal court would implement it, or why it's a remedy sought here when it wasn't sought for any of the individual claims.
Every judge that has been asked to do this in every state has gone "LOL WUT" to this request.

Also - your "alternative" is to order conflicting certifications and create a constitutional crisis? Yeah, courts LOVE doing that.
GIVE ME AN "M" ("M"!) GIVE ME AN "O" ("O"!) GIVE ME AN "O" ("O"!) "GIVE ME A "T"! ("T"!!)

WHAT'S THAT SPELL??!
Oh, good. Discovery is apparently the fourth alternative form of relief they're seeking.
And neither of the two alternatives crammed in at the end there is likely to fly. Or is likely constitutional. Or is likely to be achievable, given that the electors aren't before the court.
And a bunch of the same garbage, but better formatted.
And some more, because I was going to do multiple screencaps in the last tweet but it's late I'm almost done and I forgot.
Also, 4 and 9 seem to be functionally identical, except that I'm not sure how one goes about "Siez[ing] and Impound[ing]" things via "emergency declaratory judgment."
And, mercifully, we're at the signature block. I don't know who the other members of this funny farm are, but there seem to be a few of them and they should be held jointly and severally liable for all the ethical violations in this complaint.
And, yeah, @llinwood is on there, so we've apparently got a whole Qpid firm here.
And just one more thing - I learned this courtesy of Blanx who I won't tag so as not to destroy mentions.

Check out these screencaps. Link for the full case is here, too. scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
That wraps it for me - finally - for the day.

I won't stream the Georgia thingy today. Depending on whether there are other developments, I *may* tomorrow.

In other words, I will do an election litigation Friday night stream on Twitch - exact lunacy covered TBD.
That'll be tomorrow night, 7:30 Central, twitch.tv/questauthority

I see a lot of people clicked "follow" today - I'm surprised and honored. Thank y'all.

Hope your Thanksgiving was less crazy than mine.

Cheers!

/fin
Addendum: This Gregory Rohl that they found to work as their local counsel is a true gem - I'll go looking for a bar disciplinary record tomorrow. I'm too burned out to do more reading tonight.

publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/opinions/final…
(PPS - thanks again to Blanx for that last link.)
Also - I usually read all the comments but that's clearly not possible tonight. I wasn't expecting this to blow up.

• • •

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

27 Nov
THREAD: Why you shouldn't worry about SCOTUS overturning today's 3rd Circuit decision; or: Why Jenna is very, very, very wrong.

For the lawyers, of course, the answer is obvious: wrong question, wrong standard of review, and nothing for SCOTUS to do.

For the nonlawyers:
The appeals process has rules. For example, appeals are appeals, not fresh trials. You don't get to add new evidence. You don't get to add new claims. You just get to claim that the court or courts before got it wrong.

That's all.
For this case, because Rudy and Jenna and the rest of that all-clown circus weren't very good at being lawyers, that means that the only thing they can do is ask SCOTUS to tell the 3rd Circuit to tell Judge Brann to look at their Second Amended Complaint.
Read 17 tweets
27 Nov
For those who have questions about this election and the lawsuits, @j_remy_green has very graciously offered to drop by for tonight's stream and answer the questions I can't. This is really good, because I know almost nothing about election law and Remy knows lots.
Remy is brilliant and has been doing wonderful work this election cycle - they've sued lots people for messing with absentee voting this year & filed a fabulous amicus brief in the case where the 3rd Circuit just handed Rudy his head.

7:30 Central, twitch.tv/questauthority
So, seriously, drop by if you've got any questions on the election litigation - because if you don't you might have to listen to us geek out about other areas of law instead.
Read 4 tweets
27 Nov
Reassurance Thread:
Don't worry about this. This is @SenMastriano - a far-right figure first elected last year proposing something which simply wouldn't be legal or, potentially, possible.

It's deeply unserious posturing from a deeply unserious person.
First of all, this is a freshman state senator, and there's no indication that the joker has the clout to get his resolution to the floor, let alone passed.

Beyond that...
There is substantial reason to doubt that the PA state legislature could do this through a joint resolution; it is extremely likely that they would need to pass a law, which would be subject to veto.

They are hoping that the language of Article 2 of the Constitution helps them.
Read 11 tweets
27 Nov
Good Morning, Followers of PA Legal Hijinks. Donald Trump just lost his appeal at the 3rd Circuit.

I'm getting a copy of the opinion ASAP and will be back with more as soon as I have one.
And here's the link to the ruling.

It's marked as non-precedential, which surprises me slightly, particularly given the length.

Let's hear it for the judges and clerks who CLEARLY sacrificed much of Thanksgiving to deal with Rudy's absolute nonsense.

drive.google.com/file/d/1ktkLrV…
For those wondering - all 3 judges are Republican appointees. Smith and Chagres are GWB appointees, and Bibas is a Trump appointee. Image
Read 61 tweets
27 Nov
False. The only way it could happen is if the Supreme Court ruled that all mail ballots are unconstitutional because it's unconstitutional to treat voters differently in any way and everyone therefore must vote in the same manner.

This WON'T happen for at least 2 reasons:
1: Mail-in ballots of various kinds have been a thing for an extremely long time and won't be found unconstitutional now.

2: Such a ruling would invalidate not just the Presidential election but also EVERY SINGLE RACE on the 2020 ballots. This would cause unimaginable chaos.
Seriously, that ruling would result in all the elections for the House of Representatives being ruled invalid, as well as every single state and local race that took place on Nov 3rd.

And, no, such a theoretical ruling wouldn't just throw out mail-in ballots and keep in-person.
Read 6 tweets
27 Nov
THREAD: Courts and Reassurance, Part II
This is something I should have mentioned in the first thread: the thing where people are worried because Justice Alito is the Circuit Justice for the 3rd Circuit.

Let's talk real quick about why that's not a reason for fear.
This fear started to pop up when people learned that the Supreme Court's "Circuit Justice" assignments were moved around last week.

That's a really insider area of law, so there's understandably been some confusion about this. Let's see if we can fix it.
scotusblog.com/2020/11/court-…
There are 13 Circuit Courts of Appeal in the United States. Those are the courts where where you have to almost always make your first appeal when you lose in the District Court.

Each Circuit has a US Supreme Court justice assigned as the "Circuit Justice."
Read 9 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!