Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

I love this bit from RI’s link (READ THE WHOLE THING - IT’S SUBLIME):

They wanted to have an administrative law judge assigned. That's NOT a standard thing, so they needed to ask for it by a motion. They didn't. So they got a regular judge, who, on 12/9, issued what I assume is a relatively standard case-opening scheduling order.

That shocked you band of clowns into action, so on 12/10 you made an emergency motion for the appointment of an ALJ. THE NEXT DAY you band of fuckwits filed an Emergency Petition to Cert to the Georgia Supreme Court, appealing <checks notes, dies> a damned SCHEDULING ORDER??

You thought you'd be able to skip from the trial court to the Georgia Supreme Court on an appeal from a scheduling order?!

The GA Supreme Court, which only reviews cases that have been completed, took all of 1 day to say "LOL, no, you don't get to appeal this to us. Idiots."

- Doc

And this is not tricky stuff. Litigators learn very early on to double check local court rules, especially when asking for some sort of unusual relief. They also learn that the way you get a judge to do something with your case is to file a motion.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lol @:

“And the finish”

I think I’m left a bit speechless. Just read the link.

- Doc

[Lem]

Also from RI's link

"That was conducted contrary to the "Manner" ..."

a legal argument if I ever heard one.

But this footnote was the best. I kid you not, here it is transcribed:

Illegal voting occurred in Georgia. [footnote]3

.......
[footnote]3. Gabriel Sterling, on Facebook December 22, 2020, acting under color of law, and
acting as the Secretary of State’s agent for the Office of the Secretary of Sate [sp] stated
and represented that “I and the office have said repeatedly there was illegal voting.”

Beyond the lack of logic embedded in stating that something posted on Facebook constitutes documentation, The 'office of the Secretary of SATE' seems to be an egregiously non-fortuitous error to make, does it not?!!!

[Res Ipsa]

Good catch on the footnote, Lem. by the way, that one is guaranteed to piss off the judge.

[Some Schmo]

That was a fun thread. Hilarious, really. The guy reminds me of Darth J.

The thing I laughed at most was "hey, brain geniuses, I can't do anything until I have jurisdiction again."

[Some Schmo]

RI, doesn't this kind of stuff have consequences for lawyers? These seem like intentionally dodgy procedural moves just to raise a ruckus without actually trying to win the case.

[Lem]

Good catch on the footnote, Lem. by the way, that one is guaranteed to piss off the judge.

I can only imagine. I mean, you want judges to be unbiased, but I would think it's the same concept as in sports, right? There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to unnecessarily irritating the refs!!

Not being a lawyer, serious question to our in house counsel, as it were. Who is writing this stuff? I am imagining that established, good lawyers are politely refusing to touch this with a 10 foot pole, and so the white house is getting lesser known, nothing to lose lawyers who have decided 'throwing a hail Mary with the teensiest chance of succeeding' is their best career choice at the moment. Am I right? Or is it just speed that prevents these authors from having one of their baby interns run spell check before they send this stuff to court?

I see Some Schmo has basically asked the same question:

RI, doesn't this kind of stuff have consequences for lawyers? These seem like intentionally dodgy procedural moves just to raise a ruckus without actually trying to win the case.

[Some Schmo]

...acting as the Secretary of State’s agent for the Office of the Secretary of Sate [sp] stated and represented that “I and the office have said repeatedly there was illegal voting.”

That definitely feels like a Freudian slip to me. Attempting to sate Trump is all this is about.

[Res Ipsa]

RI, doesn't this kind of stuff have consequences for lawyers? These seem like intentionally dodgy procedural moves just to raise a ruckus without actually trying to win the case.

Well it can. It can hurt your reputation among your peers and clients, which can have a big impact on your bottom line or your firm’s. Judges are cautious about sanctions, because they don’t want to discourage lawsuits that have merit. But if they aren’t pushed far enough, they’ll impose monetary sanctions. Judges have also been known to refer lawyers to their state bar for discipline.

[Res Ipsa]

I can only imagine. I mean, you want judges to be unbiased, but I would think it's the same concept as in sports, right? There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to unnecessarily irritating the refs!!

Not being a lawyer, serious question to our in house counsel, as it were. Who is writing this stuff? I am imagining that established, good lawyers are politely refusing to touch this with a 10 foot pole, and so the white house is getting lesser known, nothing to lose lawyers who have decided 'throwing a hail Mary with the teensiest chance of succeeding' is their best career choice at the moment. Am I right? Or is it just speed that prevents these authors from having one of their baby interns run spell check before they send this stuff to court?

It’s just like sports. You want to work the refs, not puts them off. More importantly, you want to stay on the good side of the judge’s staff.

The lawyers in these suits have been playing musical chairs, so it’s hard to say who is doing what sometimes. Initially, Trump had top notch lawyers, but they withdrew after Rudy and Sidney started holding press conferences. Sidney Powell has a boutique appellate practice, so she likely didn’t have the resources to throw at four huge federal cases at the same time. The Amistad lawyers were particularly bad. I haven’t heard anything about the guy who filed the current lawsuit.

I proof my pleadings by having the computer read them aloud to me. Then my secretary, who is excellent, proofs them. Then I have another lawyer working on the case proof and edit. Some of the pleadings in these cases look like no ones ever proved them. Sure, they’re pressed for time, but not having enough time is chronic in litigation.