Kellye SoRelle is once again promoting In re Gondor III, her wildly misguided qui tam suit that she claims to have filed directly with the Supreme Court.
https://twitter.com/kellyesorelle/status/1468572325985636356
Once again, I can't independently verify that she's filed this thing because she claims it is filed under seal, but this version (hat tip @wwbd17) appears to be the most recent version.
documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri…
documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri…
I broke down the many, many errors in the original in this long thread from August:
https://twitter.com/MithradatesVI/status/1425093152256442374?s=20
WWBD is doing his first impressions of the revised version here:
https://twitter.com/WWBD17/status/1468952547654352898?s=20
She appears to have fixed some but not nearly all of the formatting errors that plagued the original.
For instance, she still hasn't used the correct font if she wants the clerk to actually accept and file it. It's still in Times, not Century.
For instance, she still hasn't used the correct font if she wants the clerk to actually accept and file it. It's still in Times, not Century.
And it still randomly jumps from left justified to centered occasionally, as well as having margins all over the place.
So have no fear, this is never even getting through the front door at the clerks office, much less getting an actual ruling from the Court.
So have no fear, this is never even getting through the front door at the clerks office, much less getting an actual ruling from the Court.
So what HAS changed?
Well, for starters, she has now worked Covid-19 conspiracies into her "History" section, which finally explains why she was seeking people with Covid-19 complaints in her original "call to arms" message attached to the first version.
Well, for starters, she has now worked Covid-19 conspiracies into her "History" section, which finally explains why she was seeking people with Covid-19 complaints in her original "call to arms" message attached to the first version.
The History section now also claims that this is just the first in a series of suits.
Join me now, as I sing the Song of Gondor in celebration that Gondor will know no end.
I'm still working my way through the changes, but they are mostly minor.
For instance, this paragraph is largely verbatim, except that SoRelle now feels the need to draw the Court's attention to its own filing system for some reason. Baffling.
For instance, this paragraph is largely verbatim, except that SoRelle now feels the need to draw the Court's attention to its own filing system for some reason. Baffling.
She has reworked several paragraphs after this one, but in doing so she has actually broken her own numbering system.
Paragraph 11 is now followed by new paragraphs 12-19, then it jumps back to the original paragraph 12. This whole thing is mostly a copy-paste job.
Paragraph 11 is now followed by new paragraphs 12-19, then it jumps back to the original paragraph 12. This whole thing is mostly a copy-paste job.
Our first major change: She now alleges additional claims on top of the FCA.
1. Because she claims to be Native American, she wants to add a Civil Rights Act claim.
1. Because she claims to be Native American, she wants to add a Civil Rights Act claim.
2. She has added claims for treason and misprison of treason.
Yes, she added federal crimes as civil claims in her LOLsuit. Because why not? It's all fake anyway.
Yes, she added federal crimes as civil claims in her LOLsuit. Because why not? It's all fake anyway.
3. RICO
Because it isn't a LOLsuit without a RICO claim. (Don't bother throwing up the @popehat signal, I don't think he comments on suits brought by the mentally unwell.)
Because it isn't a LOLsuit without a RICO claim. (Don't bother throwing up the @popehat signal, I don't think he comments on suits brought by the mentally unwell.)
Our second major change: She now includes an application for admission pro hac vice... to the Supreme Court.
I get it, she couldn't find two SCOTUS bar attorneys willing to sponsor her, but still, that's a sad look.
I get it, she couldn't find two SCOTUS bar attorneys willing to sponsor her, but still, that's a sad look.
She cites as her qualification for being admitted that she took a CLE for the Western District of Texas earlier this year. That's just so, so sad. I genuinely feel bad for her.
She also includes a new Motion for Expedited Hearing. She refers the motion to Justice Thomas for no obvious reason other than he is the craziest one on the Court, I guess.
She practices exclusively in the 5th Circuit, which would be Alito, but I guess Alito wasn't crazy enough.
She practices exclusively in the 5th Circuit, which would be Alito, but I guess Alito wasn't crazy enough.
I literally just died and went to heaven. 👻😇
SoRelle, you are a treasure. Never change. 🤣
SoRelle, you are a treasure. Never change. 🤣
In addition, her motion expands her requested relief to "Every kind of writ the court has. Writ of habeas corpus? Sure, throw one of those in the bag."
Oh lord, the Steward of Gondor she wants is Chuck Grassley.
You guys, was Chuck Grassley a particularly angry man?
Kellye finally says the quiet part out loud: the problem with these elections was that they were "in the hands of the people via popular vote."
We can't just elect presidents because they win the most votes, y'all. That's unconstitutiomonal.
We can't just elect presidents because they win the most votes, y'all. That's unconstitutiomonal.
In case Thomas is too stupid to realize the implications of appointing Grassley as the Steward of Gondor, SoRelle also includes her fully realized fantasy tale for how doing so would reinstall Trump.
Her prayer for relief amounts to an injunction against the entire legislative and executive branches.
SoRelle needs to get out of law. Her true calling is clearly comedy.
SoRelle needs to get out of law. Her true calling is clearly comedy.
That wraps up the changes really. She still hasn't remedied any of the substantive problems.
1. She makes no argument in her case in chief that the FCA actually applies here, esp. in face of Vermont Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88 (2000) saying quite clearly that it *doesn't.*
2. She's still publishing "sealed" documents willy nilly, despite the problems that poses under State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. ___ (2016).
3. This is still a fantasy-land document completely unhinged from any law or procedure that would actually allow it to be heard or adjudicated.
Maybe should have lead with 3...
Maybe should have lead with 3...
Before I forget, #InreGondor so that this thread can be found in searches (along with all the other crazy suits in its line).
As always, reserving the end of the thread to answer questions and late arriving thoughts.
Yes, admission pro hac vice to SCOTUS is possible. It is reserved for individuals who are either 1) not admitted to practice before the highest court in their jurisdiction, or 2) are admitted in a foreign jurisdiction.
https://twitter.com/mglovesfun/status/1468993745463001099?s=20
See Rule 6.
Admission in Texas only has one tier, and that includes admission before the highest court in the state. SoRelle is not actually qualified to move for admission pro hac vice.
She just can't find two sponsors, so this move is *unbelievably* sad.
Admission in Texas only has one tier, and that includes admission before the highest court in the state. SoRelle is not actually qualified to move for admission pro hac vice.
She just can't find two sponsors, so this move is *unbelievably* sad.
You know, credit where it is due, at least SoRelle has the stones to actually try to file her LOLsuit.
Mike Lindell is still out there trying to sell it to a state attorney general instead of filing it himself.
Mike Lindell is still out there trying to sell it to a state attorney general instead of filing it himself.
I wouldn't expect sanctions, purely on the basis that this never makes it to any judge. It dies in the clerks office for failure to follow even basic guidelines on formatting.
https://twitter.com/thomaross/status/1468998495075979272?s=20
This latest version of SoRelle's LOLsuit continues to ask for a jury trial, which deserves as much mockery as we can lay on it (and which I already thoroughly mocked back in August), but that did get me thinking,
Have SCOTUS jury trials ever existed?
Have SCOTUS jury trials ever existed?
The answer turns out to be yes! Back in the 1790s, in the first years of the Court, SCOTUS did indeed oversee three jury trials.
yalelawjournal.org/note/special-j…
yalelawjournal.org/note/special-j…
They appear to have been trying to emulate something that the British high courts used to do, allowing juries of merchants to determine international merchant cases.
Super interesting! Not helpful to SoRelle, who is not getting a jury in front of SCOTUS or anywhere else.
Super interesting! Not helpful to SoRelle, who is not getting a jury in front of SCOTUS or anywhere else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
