The Acting President of the Oathkeepers is one of the lawyers who, last January, filed a suit seeking to have the President, Vice President, and most of Congress replaced with stewards. And cited, as precedent, the Lord of the Rings.

No, I'm not kidding.
Oh, and they asked the court to do so ex parte, without waiting to hear from the President or Congress.

Just in case you don't believe me, and I don't blame you at all if you don't - here's a link to the motion and the relevant screenshots:…
Yes, this is a real twitter thread about real things that have really happened.

• • •

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!


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

14 Jan
Y'all - someone wishing to remain anonymous just sent me the most amazing link. Remember our little chat about the Oathkeepers indictment from yesterday? And remember the other guy who just got arrested - Edward Valljeo (the one I've maybe called "Rambubba" once or twice)?
Someone sent me the link to his Twitter. It certainly seems to check out, although it's an organization's account. He's associated with it on the site, and Googling seems to check out.

And he tweeted about...well...just wait for it. I'm gonna screenshot in case it goes bye-bye.
Here's the most recent tweet from that timeline.

*Ron Howard Voice*
"A report did not follow."
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Good evening everyone -
The Litigation Disaster Tourism Hour(s) start in just over 2 hours, at 7:30 CST. What will we be covering? You've still got about 45 minutes to vote!

I should be able to do at least the top 2 of those.

Of course, there are still probably at least 3 or 4 hours left for something else to happen to throw off even that nonplan, but, hey, who knows.

And, yes, I mean 3 or 4 hours; wouldn't be the first time something happened mid-stream.
Anyway, please drop by and tune in. If nothing else, you can take bets on how much is going in the swear jar tonight ($1 goes to the charity below for every swear word).

Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Good afternoon, everyone -
Slow news day, huh?

I'll be running the Litigation Disaster Tourism Hour(s) stream as usual tonight, starting at 7:30 Central. But there's one of me and limited time. What do you want covered the most? I'll try for at least the top 2.
(These choices are, of course, subject to modification when/if more stuff happens today.)

The stream starts at 7:30 Central. Hope to see you there!
Feel free to add suggestions, of course - but damn it's been a day.
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Here's reasoned discussion, Tom:
Under current law, to receive a stay the plaintiffs had to show:
1. Likelihood of success;
2. That *they* would suffer irreparable harm without a stay;
3. That the balance of harm favors a stay; AND
4. That a stay is in the public interest.
The unsigned per curiam did not deign to discuss harm. It does not use the word "irreparable." It does not use the word "harm." Or "injury."

The final two factors were covered by "the equities" and got two handwaving paragraphs.

Irreparable harm wasn't covered at all.
Why was irreparable harm not covered? That's a very good question, Tom, I'm glad you asked. This case was brought by business interests who were complaining about business injuries. That kind of injury, traditionally, is considered to be "reparable" because money can fix it.
Read 10 tweets
13 Jan
Looking for the documents now.
I'm going to skim before tweeting more - but these are big charges.

Read 28 tweets
13 Jan
Hey, remember that LOLsuit where the guy who was the baby on the cover of the Nevermind Album was suing Nirvana on the theory that everyone who ever sold a used copy of the album committed a federal child porn offense?
The one that the judge dismissed without prejudice a week or so ago because the LOLyers missed a deadline, and told them they could refile but they should fix defects that are basically unfixable first?

And remember how I was like, OK, that's done?
Read 4 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!