Thread by @KlasfeldReports

Meanwhile, federal proceedings are about to begin in another Wisconsin case with Trump as plaintiff.

His appointee U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig is presiding.

(Multiple Trump-appointees have rejected similar suits.)

Follow along with me in the thread.

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1337041503600996353

"Court is now in session."

Bill Bock, representing Trump, introduces himself and co-counsel.

Wisconsin's lawyer is Corey Finkelmeyer.

Charles Curtis, Jr appears for DNC

Joseph Goode appears for NAACP

U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig announces that the proceedings are a final hearing on the merits.

Listen in here:

Wisconsin @GovEvers' Davida Brook from Susman Godfrey LLP notes that the court's chief Judge Pepper noted that the case should not reach the evidence-gathering phase because there's no jurisdiction, which she found in dismissing the Kraken last night.

Judge Ludwig:

"The material facts are not disputed. I would very much like to get the parties to agree to the parameters of the undisputed facts."

He adjourns for 20 minutes to resolve that.

"If we're down to minimal things, it doesn't make sense to have testimony."

The adjournment has been elongated.

Now back at 10 a.m. Central Time.

Gov. Evers's counsel reports fruitful discussions over the recess. They need a little more time to iron things out, and court now will be back in session at 10:20 a.m. CT.

You heard it, coffee enthusiasts!

Warm up time...

On another YouTube channel, the Eastern District of Wisconsin's live-streaming naturalization ceremonies.

My friend was naturalized last year, and for anyone who has not witnessed those proceedings, they are inspiring.

Congratulations to the new U.S. citizens in Wisconsin.

How much longer than the originally estimated 20 minutes has this adjournment lasted?

I started listening to Bob Dylan's album "Blonde on Blonde" somewhere in the middle of it, and I'm almost on "Absolutely Sweet Marie" now.

"To live outside the law you must be honest, /
I know you always say that you agree."

Crooned just now by Bob Dylan during the recess.

Okay, we're more than 8 minutes into "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" now.

What is going on in federal court in Milwaukee?

The album is over, and the parties have agreed to a stipulation of facts.

Notably, the word fraud does not appear once in the document. Read for yourself here: beta.documentcloud.org/documents/2042…

* Stipulation of PROPOSED facts and exhibits.

Most of the proposed facts stipulated to by the parties rehashes matters that did not impress Wisconsin's state judiciary and would be familiar to anyone who followed those cases.

Court is back in session.

The judge says that he briefly skimmed the stipulation of proposed facts.

The judge asks the parties to limit the "political theater" in their arguments.

He adds that he's aware that this is a "most remarkable proceeding" and that if he granted the request relief, it'd be the "most remarkable ruling in the history of this court."

Bock is up claiming that Trump's request to overthrow the will of the people in Wisconsin via judicial fiat is about upholding the "rule of law."

Bock: "irregardless"

This sums it up, "irregardless" of the will of the people.

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1337093987195351041?s=20

By the way, @MikeSacksEsq got a fuller quote of the one that I tweeted earlier — in case you're wondering about the judge's preliminary thoughts about what he previously called the "odd" case.

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1337089271455502336?s=20

Bock is still at it, reprising many of the arguments rejected by Wisconsin's Supreme Court and hoping a federal judge will bite.

Bock says that "Olympic athletes may be banned and stripped of their medals" if traces of performance enhancing drugs are found in their systems, asking if federal elections should function the same way.

Why that analogy? This is why: kgrlaw.com/william-bock-i…

Bock: "The ramifications for the republic are profound."

Pushing the doping analogy further, the sports litigator asks judge to call foul—or else: "They will, as they did in this case, step well over the line."

Bock talks about the "election" that he wants to be "declared void."

Bock: "These defendants have constructed and advanced a myth" that declaring an election void would disenfranchise millions of voters.

That's not a myth so much as a plain fact.

Bock reverts back to a sports analogy, referring to an amicus brief referring to a ball game with a winner and a loser.

Sometimes there are disqualifications on the field, he notes.

Bock, Trump's sports-litigator attorney, wants to DQ Wisconsin's election in this analogy.

Bock objects to calling things by their name: "The disenfranchisement charge is a blatant appeal to emotion."

He adds that pointing out Trump's not proving fraud is "another logical fallacy, your honor. "

"Proof of fraudulently cast ballots is not necessary," he says.

Bock again repeats that Trump does not need to prove fraud in order to prove election law was not followed.

Again, Trump is not alleging fraud in Wisconsin.

Just as he did not allege fraud in Pennsylvania. (Giuliani)

Just as he did not allege fraud in Arizona. (Langhofer)

Bock, again: "There's no requirement to prove fraud."

Bock argues that the election must be voided and thrown out because of ballot policies drawn up months ago and not objected to until after Trump lost, even if there is not a drop of evidence of fraud and they don't allege it.

Really. That's the argument.

Bock: "Your honor, thank you for your patience."

Then Bock drones on a bit more.

Bock notes that overturning an election on the basis he argued will ignite "howls of protest" but overturning the election will lead to "greater freedom."

A ruling overthrowing Wisconsin's election, he says, would rank among Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

Trump's lawyer Kevin Koons claims that Trump didn't sit on his rights because he sued two days after the final canvassing.

(The basis of his election-toppling request is a policy announced months ago.)

Trump's attorneys are done.

The judge wants a sandwich.

We adjourn, and Wisconsin's up after the recess.

Wisconsin's attorneys promised to be less loquacious than the 2-hour monologues from Trump's lawyers.

Back at 2:30 p.m.

After the recess started, a quiet exclamation "Jesus!" could be heard over the audio in a hot mic moment.

I hear you, buddy.

We return at 2:30 p.m. Central Time

Gov. Evers' attorney Jeff Mandel:

"What President Trump seeks here is profoundly anti-democratic and unconstitutional. The court should reject it.

Mandel noted that the plaintiff's counsel's request today to declare the contest "void" is new.

That's true.

This is the relief requested in the complaint.

Voiding it isn't among the asks.

The governor's lawyer: "Here we have a delay of at least 105 days between the guidance that was complained of" and the lawsuit.

Mandel notes they have no evidence that the drop-boxes that Team Trump kvetches about helped POTUS-elect Biden in any way.

Mandel:

Trump's attorney wanted to wait to see whether he would win before complaining about the rules in court.

That's exactly what the doctrine of laches was designed to prevent, he notes.

Mandel notes that even Trump's "audacious" request can't help him because he seeks only the court's advisory opinion to Wisconsin's Legislature.

"Winning will not redress the president's injury."

Mandel:

Trump would "explode" the concept of Article III standing by turning any post-election grievance into a federal case.

Mandel recites the litany of court decisions where Trump and his allies have been slapped down, a sizeable list.

Mandel ends with remarks about Trump's "profoundly antidemocratic" and "frankly absurd" request.

He ends by talking about the people left out of Trump's counsel's presentation: the 3.3 million voters whom the president wants to disenfranchise.

Colin Roth, repping other Wisconsin officials, notes that the state's Supreme Court approved the procedures being complained about and that there's no evidence that the state's voter ID laws were not followed.

Joseph Goode, from the firm Laffey Leitner & Goode LLC, is up for the NAACP and individual voters.

"The NAACP and the Voters Committee have partnered to protect the rights of Black voters."

"What we have seen is part of the strategy to go after the Black vote."

Goode notes that the case is focused on Milwaukee and Dane Counties, where the most Black people live.

Goode calls out Bock's "patently offensive" comparison of Trump's effort to overthrow the will of Black voters to Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia, watershed rulings for desegregation and ending miscegenation laws.

Judge adjourns for 15 minutes.

He thanks defendants for their concision.

Trump's counsel were not concise.

He said he'll have questions when he comes back.

Judge says that it "seems" he has jurisdiction.

"I have to have federal jurisdiction to decide that overarching issue."

Mandel:

Let's assume arguendo that you have that power. That would require a departure from state law. That's not this case.

Trump's cases have been thrown out regularly for lack of jurisdiction.

This is quite a novel remark from the Trump appointee.

The judge tells Bock that this would be a minor departure from the legislative scheme.

"Why is that wrong?" he grills Trump's lawyer.

To be clear, the judge has expressed a lot of skepticism about Trump's legal theories—except he's been more willing to entertain jurisdiction than his colleagues on the federal bench.

Judge to Trump lawyer: "So you're saying it's significant," as an alleged departure from state law.

"Saying it's significant doesn't make it significant."

Judge: The request to strike down elections in the state of Wisconsin strikes me as "incredible."

A number of Trump's suits have been thrown out on this basis.

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1337158988891353089?s=20

Judge Ludwig adjourns without an immediate ruling.

One more thing:

Judge Ludwig made a point to commend his law professor on jurisdiction in the hopes that someone would tweet that out.

Legal eagles' eyes are on you, professor.