You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Frivolous Performative Litigation Thread - Seditionists v 117th Congress et al: Good evening, y'all. As promised, let's look at the motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed in the coocoo for coco puffs attempt to invalidate the 117th Congress. https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/doc1/181125688721 …
This morning's thread on the complaint is here. I'm referring to the case as "Seditionists v 117th Congress" rather than by the names of the nominal plaintiffs because this suit is clearly more about keeping the lawyers out of jail than anything else.https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1351592458581372934?s=20 …
Sadly, that isn't really hyperbole. It appears that both the lawyers for the nominal plaintiffs may have been involved in the events of the 6th (both seem to have been present) and part of the relief they want is an order banning the FBI from arresting them.
This motion was filed as a motion for emergency ex parte relief. So far the docket shows no movement from the court, perhaps in part because plaintiffs do not appear to have fully complied with the rules governing such motions.pic.twitter.com/it62NqxUYk
At least some of this - and maybe most of it - is copypasta from the complaint. I know footnote 1 is (it was memorably terrible), and the rest of this paragraph seems familiar. But there's no way I'm going to do a side-by-side. I'd have to care more about this loser for that.pic.twitter.com/AOxwVgWm80
Yup - they forgot to substitute "motion" for "complaint" when they did the cut and paste, and the "signed their own death warrants" melodrama is also memorable for all the wrong reasons.pic.twitter.com/YbCxk5sfkX
Yeah, still in deja who cares territory. Court's never gonna reach political question even if they get to the case before the lawyers are locked up and anyway there was an evidentiary hearing in fed court in Wisconsin so that's still wrong.pic.twitter.com/0dz3okfysY
We're still in summer reruns here apparently. Also, the laches argument is still terrible and catastrophically wrong. The fact that the nominal plaintiffs didn't know about HAVA doesn't help with laches. At all. Even a little bit.pic.twitter.com/8pWtLt4Lki
And the foreseeablility and ripeness arguments are so totally inane that not even the self-declared lack of sleep being experienced by the brief's author (wait for it; we'll get there) excuses them.pic.twitter.com/TeWRLf9hWj
I wouldn't usually interrupt the thread to show you exhibits that are bananapants, but these are just too good to pass up.pic.twitter.com/qbaflXIU0t
Here, in it's full and complete glory, is the Macias Declaration. It states, under penalty of perjury, that Macias voted. And that's all. Nothing about *how* he voted, which will come back to haunt the lawyer in about 2 paragraphs.pic.twitter.com/0TtJbqE8zl
Here is the full CV for the expert witless. I particularly love that "aviator" "marksman" "technologist" and "world traveler" are all listed as skills. I bet the judge will love how the CV literally calls him an "Expert in Geo-Political Operations" without providing any support.pic.twitter.com/9PcC5k76Pq
Because that's totally how you qualify someone as an expert under Daubert, right? You just have them put "I Is A Real Expert Admit My Evidense Plz" in the sidebar and you're good to go, right?
Yes, definitely. When you are LITERALLY requesting that a court issue the most radical relief ever imposed by any court in the history of possibly anything, you should *DEFINITELY* rest your hopes on "one simple case of injury."pic.twitter.com/eNh7DIuPl0
And, yes, this is like the seventh time I've said that one of these cases has requested the most radical relief of all time, or at least in American history. I've been right every damn time, it's just that THEY KEEP GETTING BUGNUTTIER.
And now we get to the bit where the sleep-deprived doofus decides not to wake up the plaintiff and get key information but just wing it anyway. Because why not, right, it's not like you're claiming that the entire fate of the Republic hinges---- oh. Ooops.pic.twitter.com/S7v8syLpld
But credit where due: As longtime followers may recall, a different attorney in a different case, when confronted with a late-night realization that key affidavits were deficient, fraudulently notarized them. This at least avoided actual attempted fraud.
Also, this bit kind of flies in the face of basically all the cases that Trump and the Krakenheads filed, all of which were actively attempting to deprive people of their legal right to vote.pic.twitter.com/1ch39MP5ge
But all that said: I think a lot of us have written something like this at two in the morning, in some desperate attempt to finish some draft of something. It's just that we usually remember to take it out instead of making it part of the actual argument.pic.twitter.com/yAU6Y5oUWY
Oh, good. We've got a rerun on the "This is a Wendy's" part of the complaint, too.pic.twitter.com/wG1a1R5kYQ
No, I'm not going to livetweet the one-page expert's twenty-three-page explanation of how unelecting the entire Congress would somehow frighten serious investors less than a Biden Administration. Sorry.pic.twitter.com/gQ2yE2yvGW
More rerun. We're into "not even trying" territory. Do they think the mere fact that they're counsel of record on a three-rings-no-waiting clownshow of a "case" will somehow save them from the FBI?pic.twitter.com/kSfpsJHozV
Y'all, it should really go without saying that if you are going to claim that each of the 50 states individually broke the law in a different way you can't just give one example but apparently it doesn't go without saying because sedition, it would seem, rots the brain.pic.twitter.com/K3qAGcLu8l
Or maybe it's just the terror at the thought of prosecution that's doing that.
Oh good. Copypasta of the "I'm so tired can't I just go to bed now I'm soo tired I can't do this anymore" bit, which will surely impress a judge with over 500 cases on the docket.pic.twitter.com/qlvVcfMA9g
Also, I've looked at HAVA and unless these bozos have an extremely broad definition of "submit identification" I don't think they're right. Also, I'm not sure they cited the right NC code section.
And it looks like the rest of this is copypasta. Including the goatfuckingly insane suggestion that an ex parte TRO is somehow appropriate because they're suing too many people to make service convenient for the plaintiffs.pic.twitter.com/fxKye887wS
I kind of hope 21 happens but I doubt it will. The rest is copied over from the complaint; it was nonsense there and it's nonsense here.pic.twitter.com/LGcnEgyfxz
But the signature page is - yet again - legendary. Not just the signature block but the whole "we don't have to provide service" thing.pic.twitter.com/xu6AxvclGD
Overall: F--- for quality. D for effort. It was mostly unoriginal whining, and the new stuff really wasn't worth the time to read. That's true regardless of your reason for reading.
I'll keep an eye on the docket, but I suspect this one might actually die before anyone appears for the defense. Particularly if the seditious solicitors get arrested before the case gets much farther. /fin
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
