As I mentioned last week, court filings aren't free. They should be, but they're not. I've had to buy quite a few of the election filings I've livetweeted - over 2,000 pages at $0.10 per page this quarter, the vast majority election-related.
Some of you have offered to help out, which is wonderful, but I'm really in a place where I'm fortunate enough to be able to absorb the expense. So let's see if we can turn this to some good instead.
Usually I suggest that people donate to their local food bank, but I'd like to do something different this time. If you've benefitted from reading the court filings, please consider donating to @FreeLawProject - which works to make it possible for people to read them for free.
Here's the key part of my bill for this go-round (I don't want to ask and not show receipts). I'm set up for @RECAPtheLaw, so for most of those pages, once I bought them they were available to you and others for free. (And I got the benefit when anyone beat me to the purchase.)
You can donate here:
If the walkthroughs that I've done (or other lawyers have done) have helped you better understand the election lawsuits and how they worked, please consider making a small contribution.
The response to the motions to dismiss is in - kind of. The plaintiffs responded only to the motion for sanctions component. They say they're going to be requesting voluntary dismissal because of mootness.
I only had time for a quick skim. But my impression is that: (1) This is a response to only one of several pending sanctions motions, so even if it's correct it won't get them off the hook for everything;
(2) They're arguing that their stuff couldn't be frivolous because Texas v PA made similar arguments (which, to the extent it's correct, maybe isn't the best argument to be making;
And I think he just said that the President can go into any federal building he wants any time he wants and while that might be true for many buildings has this goofball never heard of "separation of powers"?
I love The West Wing - or at least the first 4 seasons. Some of the best writing, dialogue that's so good I've shamelessly swiped some of it, superb cast, really, what wasn't to love.
But I also haven't really watched it for about a decade.
I've watched an occasional episode, but not the series. Didn't have time when I started law school in 2012, and after 2016 I didn't really have the heart.
Litigation Semi-update - various cases:
1: It looks like there wasn't remote public access for the hearing in the Parler v Amazon case today, probably because they dealt with the issue of sealing filings to protect Amazon employees from angry Parler users.
(By the way - if your user base is so toxic that this is even an issue, and if your contract says that they can boot you if you're a safety risk, you're probably hosed.)
The docket reflects that the judge took the matter "under advisement" meaning that a decision will be issued later.
No decision as of 20 minutes ago, I'll look again tomorrow.
Last night, when I discussed The Big Lie that Republicans are peddling on stream, I wasn't specifically thinking about this particular liar. But she's a damn good example.
Also a remarkably good example of a disgrace to the legal profession.
For the record:
1: It certainly can be - and is - in dispute whether the Republican-led Pennsylvania Legislature violated the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
2: It is also in dispute whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the US Constitution when they extended the deadline. What is not in dispute is that this doesn't affect the Presidential election - those votes weren't included in Biden's total. inquirer.com/politics/elect…
Wow - skimmed Parler's reply in their "case" against Amazon. Entire platoons of clowns must be searching for their missing shoes, because Parler's one lawyer is wearing all of them at the same time.
I'm basing that on the part of the reply that touches on the section 230 defense Amazon raised.
To refresh your recollection, Amazon argued that they were immune under 230(c)(2) - which I've included here as a screenshot along with Amazon's argument.
In reply, Parler seems to mostly argue that Amazon isn't immune because they're not being treated as a publisher or speaker. That is, sadly for Parler, what 230(c)(1) says, not 230(c)(2).