I see @questauthority already did an excellent thread on the Gohmertian reply brief the krak(en) team filed. As it's Friday afternoon, I don't have time for my own. But let's just briefly touch on the "motion to intervene" filed by the Republican Michigan Cosplay Electors
Here's what you need to know about a "motion to intervene" - it mainly exists so that parties who will be impacted by the outcome of a lawsuit can have a chance to influence that outcome if they aren't named as parties. For example - if I'm suing Bob Co. to invalidate a contract
And some third party will get paid 100K if the contract is held valid, or $0 if I win, the third party gets to intervene.

Unless, of course, Bob Co. is already going to do a good enough job fighting for the contract's validity that there's really no need for third party to join
Hence, here's the rule.
Makes sense, right?

If you're already adequately protected by the litigating party, we don't need you gumming up the works by adding another party to the caption, scheduling, service lists, etc.
OK, with that background in mind, I present to you the totality of the Michigan Electors' motion to intervene, in its full glory
I'm not exaggerating. It's 3 paragraphs. A "we are the Michigan Cosplayers" intro. That "we're moving to intervene because it's completely unnecessary" substantive paragraph. And "for these reasons, grant our motion to intervene"

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
These guys ran out of rakes to step on so they got to work building new ones.

/fin

• • •

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

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen 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 @AkivaMCohen

31 Dec 20
So Pence has basically just filed an "I can't believe you assholes put me in this position" politician's response to the Gohmert suit, regretfully asking the Court to dismiss because Plaintiffs really should have sued Congress, not him, since they're asking to give him more power
My wife just took over the computer so we'll pause this thread for a bit
To give you a sense of exactly how much of a political coward Pence is, and how much internal wrangling there must have been over the proper response here, check out the opening highlight in the second image here
Read 7 tweets
29 Dec 20
So questions like this come up a lot and it reflects a misunderstanding of how courts work, so I figured I'd address it a bit more broadly. Every case gets "heard," if by "heard" you mean "a court looks at the arguments and considers them".
Sometimes that happens only on a motion to dismiss, when the court hears arguments that the case can't possibly win even if all the facts it claims are actually true, and then dismisses the case. Sometimes it happens on summary judgment, after discovery, when the parties argue
that the evidence conclusively proves their version of the facts, so they should win. Sometimes it's after a trial.

But our courts have NO mechanism for a judge to just randomly look at a case and say "wow, this is stupid, I dismiss it"
Read 4 tweets
29 Dec 20
OK, as promised, a live-read thread on Gohmert's motion in the stupid "the VP gets to pick the next President" litigation.

I'm not going to repeat stuff I addressed when I went through the complaint so if you need a refresher, start here
So first of all, let's see what they're asking for. An expedited decision on the case, and permanent injunctive relief (i.e. an order directing Pence how to act when counting electoral votes) and they want it by Thursday the 31st. The second two screenshots are the local rule
They do not, however, explain why 12/31 is the magic date (when the acts they're worrying about would be on 1/6), and there's a slight logistical problem in asking for a schedule that requires a ruling on a motion in 3 days when you HAVEN'T YET BOTHERED TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT
Read 95 tweets
28 Dec 20
Oh come on, guys, give me some time off!

Note: This is a new litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the 12th Amendment.

It doesn't
Here's the entire 12th Amendment. Pay attention to the highlighting and follow along
Here's the 12A process

1) "The Electors" meet, vote, and transmit their lists of votes to the President of the Senate
2) The PoS SHALL open the certificates and count the votes
3) Whoever has a majority wins
4) If nobody has a majority after counting, the House delegations vote
Read 75 tweets
28 Dec 20
Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

americanthinker.com/articles/2020/…
The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)
None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.
Read 9 tweets
27 Dec 20
Seth has blocked me. But you all should see this anyway. Aside from Seth's prior admissions that he sees "metamodernism" as a way of "lying things into being" (see his post-Hillary nomination piece from 2016), his post-hoc justification for lying to you

Is that he's just "brainstorming". But it's easy to do that without abusing your trust and lying to you about what the law *is*. When Seth says things like "a pardon is invalid if it's obstructing impeachment" he isn't "brainstorming" - he's making a foundational claim about the
law that is simply false. It would have been easy enough to come clean and say "I'd like it if we reinterpret the relevant provisions to mean...", acknowledged the contrary precedent, and reckoned with it. That's someone arguing for a change in the law
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!