OK. I have tea.

And we have both a Second Amended Complaint and a response to Georgia's motion to dismiss that were filed by Paul "Denethor Doesn't Dose" Davis in In re: Gondor during the wee hours last night.

And I've got a clear couple of hours.
We'll start with the 2nd Amended Complaint because Davis is *REALLY ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DOUBT* gonna claim that the filing of that complaint moots the motion to dismiss that Georgia filed.
There's a lot to unpack here.

First up, there's this:
If you have two footnotes in the title of your pleading, you've got issues. More than National Geographic, more than the Times.

Many many many issues.
Moving on to footnote 2, Davis claims that he's got a right to Amend and needs nobody's permission.

I can see how he is reading Rule 15. His reading is...debatable.

Also, if his reading is correct, he needed permission to amend *the first time* but he didn't ask back then.
As a practical matter, I don't know how this will be handled. In part, that will depend on how much he's shifted his theory. If he's only changed a couple of minor things, I doubt anyone cares.

Big shifts after many pending motions to dismiss? This could get litigated.
In any event, someone needs to send Davis a copy of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 with my complements - because if this is not "vexatious multiplication" of the proceedings, I don't know what would be.
(For those who were wondering:

Yes.

Footnote 1 can be found within the *caption* and that's all I have to say about that.
I'm going to take a second, open the 1st Amended Complaint, and do a compare documents in Adobe. That should let me skip through stuff I've already ranted about and just cover the new nonsense.
OK, maybe that won't work as well as I thought.
This is maybe a lot. Very a lot.
There are 34 more pages. Really? Are you KIDDING ME?? ARE YOU LITERALLY KIDDING ME???

The whole complaint shouldn't have to be more than 34 pages long and you've ADDED 34 pages what the literal hell?
BRB need more caffeine. Already.
OK, so a comparison won't work. Also, we're now at 96 pages but he's....................................................................
ohfuckaduck no
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no nonononononononononononononoNO!!!!!!!!
He did. Oh good grief.
RICO.

Oh, Paul, no. You found the way to make this dumber.
OK, I'm good. I can do this.
As we see, we're now up to footnote 4, and Paul still hasn't figured out that you can't change the caption by requesting, in a footnote to the complaint, that the clerk change the caption.
You can do that in both footnote 4 *AND* footnote 5, Paul. Still won't change the fact that this is literally not how one damn thing works.
At the same time, I feel an overwhelming sense of trepidation right now.

Because the whole bugnutty introduction that occupied 25 pages of the 1st Amended Complaint is gone. AND YET the 2nd Amended Complaint is STILL 34 pages longer.
OK, so he's now clarified his allegations against the state defendants to clarify that he's attempting to serve the Governors and Secretaries of State in their personal capacities so he may ironically have managed to retroactively screw up service of process.
No, I did not even *CONCEIVE* of the possibility that you could retroactively screw up something like that.

But the exhibit that he filed with the 1st Amended Complaint made it clear that he was serving them in their official capacities and at official, state addresses.
And a LOT of the states haven't appeared yet, much less filed motions to dismiss, so this could get entertaining in a month or two if the court hasn't put Davis's case out of the court's misery by that point.
Also, I feel like I should sue Davis to recover the $2.80 I just wasted because the incompetent little twit screwed up his citations to his own bloody exhibits what the hell.
I wanted to see what addresses he's using for service now that he's claiming to sue these folks in individual capacities but Exhibit 2 is Congress only, not both Congress and the State Defendants.

Screwit. 99.9% he's still trying to serve them through the states.
OK, he's added Facebook and Twitter as defendants.

I feel like this is maybe a thing that should have been noted in the caption.

He's also added a LOT of individual defendants, it looks like. No idea who/what many of them are. Not going to list them.
Beto O'Rourke is on the list of defendants now, though.
The odds that the court takes steps to pull the plug sooner rather than later are increasing by the page.
My bad.

Davis is still an incompetent little seditionweasel, but he did have those addresses in Exhibit 2 after all. Genius has the defendants organized by state, with state and federal defendants all mixed together because why not.

But that was on me for not being careful.
Who does that?

Never mind, don't answer that.
ohmygod -

This is so insanely stupid it's something I don't think *anyone* could possibly have ever conceived of.

It's brilliant.

I mean it's going to totally fail because it's not how a single damn thing works but it's amazing.

This is going to blow the lawyers away.
Y'all -

He's trying to use RICO to fix his *massive* personal jurisdiction problem. That's why he's added a RICO claim in response to the motions to dismiss.
For the nonlawyers: it's hard to do an explainer for this, but the short version is that he thinks that the RICO claim will solve another massive problem he has.

But even if it does (it doesn't), he just created eleventy-six new problems for himself. This is amazing.
Ah. OK, the introduction didn't disappear entirely. It's been moved here.

I'm going to try to use the compare report to skip the old drek and just look for new drek.
Damn. There's lots of new drek.

Starting with the allegation that the Democrats and the Republicans are both RICO.
Now it's a well-funded RICOteering cabal, it looks like.
OK - I don't have time for all this crazy. I still need to write a bunch today. So let's do this: @ me if there's something spectacular in the "facts" diatribe that you think I should be tortured with, but otherwise I'm going to skim ahead and only highlight the worst of it.
He's used this line in all 3 complaints in this case, and I think also in however many there were in Gondor I, and he STILL hasn't fixed it.
He's still basing his whole case around that Time article, so there's not been a sudden onset of good judgment.
OK - that was many pages of Ranty McRantface Ranting at clouds but there's a new section that's apparently attempting to plead RICO with specificity.

Let's see how bad that fails.
It looks like he's claiming there were two separate RICOs/
But, no, that would have been very nearly something almost like a thing approaching pseudorationality.
He's apparently clamining a RICO SQUARED!

A secret plot between Democrats and Republicans.
I kind of want to stop because this is plausibly someone who is unwell. The thing is, there's a grifting enterprise that's built up around this, so I'm not sure that's the issue.

And, in any event, a lot of people are now being inconvenienced by this case. So I'll continue.
These are better RICO allegations than the one in that Lindell pleading, for what it's worth. They at least exist.

But they're still objectively terrible.
Sigh.

I'm going to skip ahead a bit. The gist seems to be that all of politics is RICO.
The "predicate acts" alleged (not gonna bother with screencaps) are mostly that the conspiracy conspired to keep Trump from being elected.

In 2016.
Separately, I just realized that I probably forgot to link the new complaint way back at the top of the thread when the caffeine was just kicking in. My bad. Here you go:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
But this does allow him to try to link in that PA ballot stuffing case as a predicate act.
The RICO allegations are wild, by the way.

But I don't have the time for a deep dive.
I will say this much, though:

I'm pretty sure that the speech and debate clause means that "the legislative process" can't be a RICO predicate act.

("Objective reality" is another route to that same conclusion, but I thought the constitutional point was worth a brief mention.)
He's claiming that talking about Trump and Russia is wire fraud. That's a strategy, I guess.
And it's also wire fraud to claim that Covid-19 was unprecedented because Spanish Flu.
Linear time, what is it amirite?

But seriously - yikes.
I'm skimming at this point, but I'm looking for something very specific that I haven't found yet.
OK, found it -

These two paragraphs are apparently how he's tying all the state governors and election officials into the RICO claim.

Odds that this is sufficient are indistinguishable from zero.
Also -

Paul Davis has now technically sued Paul Gosar and Mo Brooks for claiming that the election fraud stuff is a "baseless conspiracy" and I'm pretty sure that actual innocence is a defense available to those two treasonweasels on that charge.
More state-level defendant stuff. The red text in the second screenshot is in the original.
This stuff is following no logical sequence that I can detect. I'm going to skip ahead to the claims.
Right. Claim 1 is a 1983 claim which is unavailable against the federal defendants and the individual defendants except he's trying to claim that they're all tied up in his Grand Universal Conspiracy Theory of Everything. (Hereinafter "GUCTOE")
Same here - it also appears that @SollenbergerRC has been roped back into the GUCTOE but I didn't see him listed as a defendant.
This one at least doesn't require everyone to be a state actor. It does require *plausible* factual allegations, however, so Twiqbal dismissal of this claim (and the rest) is definitely gonna happen.
This one is basically unchanged, but I love the footnote that basically tells the court that it can't read his words a certain way if that way means he would fail to state a claim.

Which, of course, is not how anything works.
Count 5 is a Bivens claim against federal defendants who he claims were acting under color of *state* law as private persons.

For the nonlawyers: He has self-owned this one beyond all recognition or repair.
Same for Count 6.
Count 7 is Teh RICO.

The first predicate act is apparently obstruction of justice based on the allegation that voting machines aren't HAVA-compliant, which is not a thing.
The other allegations are based on the nutbaggery nonsense that I discussed earlier - stuff like "saying Covid is unprecedented is fraud because Spanish Flu."
There's also a bunch of bribery allegations, which mostly seem to be based on the idea that HAVA money was used to acquire machines he thinks were noncompliant.
He still wants his injunction, though.
And a lot of his attempts to show he meets requirements for an injunction remain very conclusory. To put it mildly.
And I don't think there's a change in the relief requested, which is kind of amazing given the new RICO stuff.
Thoughts:

I rarely argue that courts should act sua sponte to dismiss things unless the people affected by a crazy suit are likely to suffer significant hardship as a result.

This is an exception.
The docket in this case is a dumpster fire in a cesspool.

Lots of state lawyers have to respond to this nonsense. And Paul is so disorganized that the chaos will only get worse. The court really needs to consider a sua sponte 12(b)(everything) dismissal.
And a bar referral for Davis.
Because he's either practicing law while impaired or he's litigating for grift purposes in a manner that is not distinguishable from being impaired in any meaningful way.
Going forward:
I'm going to get my work on my thesis done for the day and a couple of other things. I should have time to look at the response to the GA motion to dismiss late this afternoon.

If not, we'll cover it on stream tonight.
I'll keep an eye out for questions, but my mentions are a screaming disaster, so I might not see them.

/fin

• • •

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

10 Jun
Good afternoon, all -

A hearing in the frivolous LOLsuit that the Job Creators network filed against Major League Baseball and the Players' Association is scheduled to kick off in about 15 minutes. I'm going to be livetweeting the hearing in this thread.
Here's a link to the docket.

Here's the summary of events:
The Job Creators Network, which is as far as I can tell a right-wing astroturf thing, is very sad that the All-Star Game was moved from Atlanta to Denver.

courtlistener.com/docket/5995048…
They hired a Kraken lawyer who has asked the judge for an immediate injunction ordering baseball to move the game back to Atlanta.

This is the hearing on that motion. The motion will not be granted; there's no suspense on that front.
Read 141 tweets
9 Jun
Good evening, everyone -

Here's what we've got planned for this week's Wednesday Powerpoint Lawsplainer (which starts in two hours, at 7:30 Central):
The basic concepts segment this week will discuss amicus briefs and amici curiae - what they are, and how that process works.

We've had multiple requests for this one, both because of recent filings and because of unrelated on-screen discussions.
The Lunatic Litigation updates this week will include some scheduling in King v Whitmer and O'Rourke v Dominion, the latest Gondorian Goofyness, and an update on the All-Star Game LOLsuit.
Read 5 tweets
8 Jun
I just looked at the amicus brief Vernan Jones submitted in the All-Star Game LOLsuit.

Ed Meese's amicus brief had literally no relevant legal argument. This has less. At one point, it even relies on the legendary legal authority of - wait for it...

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
...Schoolhouse Rock!

(Except they even get the name wrong.)

Yes, this is a thing that has really been submitted to a federal court.

"Your honor, the All-Star Game should be returned to Atlanta because Schoolhouse Rock." Image
That's right. Vernon Jones is relying, in an amicus brief to a federal court, on the legal authority of "Bill."

The one from the song. You know the one.

The one that starts, "I'm just a Bill."
Read 4 tweets
8 Jun
I'm reading Edwin Meese's amicus brief in support of the frivolous All-Star Game lawsuit.

It's one of the most impressive dumps I've ever seen someone take on their own reputation. It's a pathetic reflection on the current state of the Republican party.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Present in the brief:
A Republican who thinks businesses should stay out of politics. At least in this case, when Meese disagrees with their stand, anyway.

Absent in the brief:
Any legal argument other than "I'm mad and the court should do what I want."

That's not hyperbole.
There is *LITERALLY* no real legal argument in Edwin Meese's "Amicus Brief" that is pertinent to this case. At all. Zero-point-duckfucking-none.
Read 17 tweets
8 Jun
Excellent article at the Law and Policy blog this morning about how @neilhimself has kept control (at least so far) over the Sandman characters.

There is one point there where I'd like to offer a bit of clarification, though - it's an area where UK and US approaches differ.
This statement is absolutely correct regarding the state of the law in the UK when it comes to fictional characters. (And I prefer that approach in many ways.)

It's not the state of the law in the US, or in a number of other countries. Image
Under US law, a fictional character is protected by copyright if certain conditions are met. (The leading case at the moment is DC Comics v Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015).) Several other countries (including France and Germany) have also directly protected characters.
Read 12 tweets
8 Jun
Let me see if I can do a very quick and non-technical explainer on this one:

1. The job of the DOJ in the Carroll case is to represent the interests of the Office of the President of the United States.

2: This job is the same whether it's Barr's DOJ or Garland's.
3: Under Presidents of *both* parties, the DOJ has consistently advocated for broad protections for the Office.

4: A broad definition of the President's job duties makes it easier for the DOJ to defend the President when the President is sued in a personal capacity.
5: Before discarding the idea that it might be good for the DOJ to step in when the President is sued in a personal capacity, it might be helpful to keep in mind how much frivolous Birther litigation was filed against Obama - and how willing some lawyers are to file such cases.
Read 5 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!

:(