2020 Election Lawsuits

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 34000
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#351

Post by Volkonski »

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
7m
Brann:

How does making it easy for some people to vote burden the plaintiffs' right to vote?


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 34000
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#352

Post by Volkonski »

LastThanksgivingHat
@Popehat
·
I think Rudy just conceded that it didn't matter whether or not PA followed state law, and also I am 98% sure he does not understand what rational basis review is.

Donnovan comes back to club some jurisprudential baby seals. He answers the judge's questions that Rudy has been unable to do.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#353

Post by fierceredpanda »

OH GOD RUDY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT RATIONAL BASIS MEANS

:brickwallsmall:

(You can kind of tell he hasn't entered an appearance in federal court in almost 30 years.)


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#354

Post by Dan1100 »

Judge: "Why doesn't the Trump campaign have standing?"

Donavan - "Several reasons...

Judge: "Just sum it up... :daydream:


User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 13668
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: LDIT Supporters are "Shooketh"! -- Ali Akbar 11/29/20 #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#355

Post by Orlylicious »

POLITICS 11/17/2020 06:13 pm ET
Rudy Giuliani's 'Disgraceful' Arguments To Disenfranchise Pa. Voters Didn't Go So Well
Donald Trump's lawyer made absurd claims about “widespread, nationwide voter fraud," which he claimed was committed by Democrats on a "grand scale."
By Ryan J. Reilly

There’s an old legal saying: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” Rudy Giuliani, at a federal court hearing in Pennsylvania as part of outgoing President Donald Trump’s long-shot legal crusade to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, pounded the table and yelled like hell. Pennsylvania officials, on the other hand, argued both the facts and the law. While Trump has made absurd and evidence-free claims of mass voter fraud, things haven’t been going well for the Trump campaign in courts, where the candidate who told voters that they’d win so much they’d get “tired of winning” has been on a major losing streak.

One of the last remaining battles is in Pennsylvania, which was a must-win state for the Trump campaign. Trump and Giuliani have said hundreds of thousands of votes should be invalidated in the state because observers were limited in their ability to watch votes being counted, although the Trump campaign effectively scrapped that component of the lawsuit. Biden currently leads in Pennsylvania by more than 73,000 votes. Giuliani, during Tuesday’s hearing, made broad, sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations of “widespread, nationwide voter fraud.” Giuliani said that Democrats, during the coronavirus pandemic, “were not going to let a serious crisis go to waste,” and decided to use mail-in ballots to steal the election. He said the “Democratic machine” decided to commit voter fraud on a “grand scale.”

At one point, he claimed more than 1.5 million votes were “entered illegally,” and the Trump campaign has claimed they should be tossed out. Mark Aronchick, an attorney for Pennsylvania counties, called Giuliani’s arguments “disgraceful.” Uzoma Nkwonta, an attorney for the Democratic National Committee, pointed out that ― despite Giuliani’s arguments ― Trump campaign lawyers had not actually made substantive claims of voter fraud in court. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann gave Giuliani a lot of leeway to make his argument. But he later pressed the Trump legal team, which he said was asking the court to invalidate more than 6 million votes and disenfranchise “every single voter in the commonwealth.” “Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified?” Brann asked. Giuliani then went on an extended rant about how the votes “could have been from Mickey Mouse” and said it was wrong for election officials to give voters a chance to correct their ballots. Brann later got Giuliani to admit that ― despite his claims of mass voter fraud during oral argument ― the Trump campaign’s argument did not “plead fraud with particularity.”

The Trump campaign’s amended complaint focuses on “Democratic heavy counties,” alleging that officials in those jurisdictions did a better job than officials in Republican-heavy jurisdictions of allowing voters to fix, or “cure,” problems with their mail-in ballots before Election Day. The lawsuit claims this alleged disparity denied some Pennsylvanians “the equal protection of law,” and seeks to prevent Pennsylvania officials from certifying the results of the election. Nevertheless, Giuliani used the hearing to talk a lot about the claim that there was no meaningful access for elections observers in Philadelphia. Unfortunately for Giuliani, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that argument in a separate case Tuesday afternoon, ruling that the regulations were “reasonable” and did in fact allow candidate representatives to observe the board as it counted votes in Philadelphia. Republican voters have long been primed to subscribe to the false belief that voter fraud is a significant problem in elections. A number of former Republican-appointed top federal prosecutors spoke out about Trump’s “reckless” voter fraud comments, with one former Republican-appointed U.S. attorney saying his voter fraud campaign “smells of desperation.”

Even some longtime proponents of voting restrictions, like conservative activist and former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, said that the Trump’s effort in Pennsylvania was a long shot, and that legal claims need to be based on “real evidence,” not made-up evidence. “There’s no case that ever says not allowing observers in can overturn an election,” Adams said on Fox Business. “That case doesn’t exist. So it’s a heavy-duty ask to ask a federal court to overturn this. I don’t think there’s any chance of that.” (Even so, Adams suggested that Pennsylvania legislators might seek a “political solution” and send Trump electors to the Electoral College, but said there must be a factual predicate that is “reasonable, sound, credible, voluminous.”)

There were some big changes to the Trump campaign’s legal team in the final hours before the hearing. Giuliani, who held a press conference to highlight overblown and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in northeast Philadelphia on the day that networks called the election for Biden, joined the team. Another new member of the team, talk show host and attorney Marc Scaringi, previously told his audience that “litigation will not work” and “will not reverse this election,” as The Washington Post reported. Linda Kerns, a Republican divorce and family law attorney associated with the conservative Federalist Society, sought to be removed from the case, but the judge wouldn’t let her. Kerns previously received an award from the Republican National Lawyers Association, where she told the audience that Philadelphians “treat me like I’m the problem” when she appears in court on elections issues. “But I’m not the problem,” Kerns said. Kerns previously wrote a letter complaining that voters were dropping off two or three ballots ― presumably from other members of their households ― at Philadelphia ballot box locations, earning a warning from Pennsylvania’s attorney general, who said that the Trump campaign’s initiative of videotaping voters dropping off ballots could be considered illegal voter intimidation.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pe ... 73600b?xif


Avatar: LDIT's Court FAILS. Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring titular Mama June returns 3/21. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 34000
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#356

Post by Volkonski »

LastThanksgivingHat
@Popehat
Replying to
@Popehat
Judge is asking defendants to address questions and not asking follow-up questions in a way that suggests he agrees.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 34000
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#357

Post by Volkonski »

Dan Zak
@MrDanZak
·
48m
Update from U.S. district court in Williamsport, Pa., one of the Trump campaign's last stands:

GIULIANI: “I’m not sure what 'opacity' means. It probably means you can see.”

JUDGE BRANN: “It means you can’t.”


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#358

Post by realist »

IANAL but I"ve listened to them for over 40 years on a daily basis.

I can't believe this is simply argument for a Motion to Dismiss.

I read one today which involved 5 plaintiffs and 9 defendants and exposure of a (possibly legit) $60 million and it took about 25 minutes (all counsel spoke) and the judge ruled from the bench granting in part and denying in part. That was it.

This show, IMO, is not necesarry under the circumstances.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11869
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#359

Post by Chilidog »

bob wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:04 pm
:yawn:
So... Change of topic

When Sidney's Kraken takes a torpedo up the exhaust pipe, and goes down like the Lusitaninia, will Michael Flynn get sucked down by the undertow?

How likely will it be for Flynn a get a pardon if everyone is laughing at Trump because of Sidney Powell?


User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 13668
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: LDIT Supporters are "Shooketh"! -- Ali Akbar 11/29/20 #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#360

Post by Orlylicious »

Rick.JPG

$20,000 a day!


The judge just said the motion to file a 2nd amended complaint probably won't be meet with concurrence! :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar: LDIT's Court FAILS. Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring titular Mama June returns 3/21. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
User avatar
bob
Posts: 31313
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#361

Post by bob »



Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#362

Post by Dan1100 »

Judge: Offering Rudy to file a brief to in opposition to motion to dismiss by tomorrow and reply on thurs.

Judge: "Plaintiff's should consider whether to file new Motion for Prelim Injunction by tomorrow because of Amended Complaint and Defendants Thurs to Reply. Plaintiffs to Reply by Friday."

Judge: "2nd Amended Complaint. Need to file a Motion for Leave and see if Defendant concurs. Won't prejudge."


User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#363

Post by Res Ipsa »

realist wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:30 pm
I can't believe this is simply argument for a Motion to Dismiss.
Join the club.

People get their initial exposures to legal proceedings under the worst of circumstances. But Judge Brann is happy to let them all run wild.


Thanks pal.
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 10 years Admin Law Judge for 4 state agencies.

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#364

Post by SuzieC »

Dan1100 wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:35 pm Judge: Offering Rudy to file a brief to in opposition to motion to dismiss by tomorrow and reply on thurs.

Judge: "Plaintiff's should consider whether to file new Motion for Prelim Injunction by tomorrow because of Amended Complaint and Defendants Thurs to Reply. Plaintiffs to Reply by Friday."

Judge: "2nd Amended Complaint. Need to file a Motion for Leave and see if Defendant concurs. Won't prejudge."
Rudy don't file no briefs. His role is to scream on Fox News.


User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#365

Post by realist »

Dan1100 wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:35 pm Judge: Offering Rudy to file a brief to in opposition to motion to dismiss by tomorrow and reply on thurs.

Judge: "Plaintiff's should consider whether to file new Motion for Prelim Injunction by tomorrow because of Amended Complaint and Defendants Thurs to Reply. Plaintiffs to Reply by Friday."

Judge: "2nd Amended Complaint. Need to file a Motion for Leave and see if Defendant concurs. Won't prejudge."
Well, that sucks.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 4033
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#366

Post by Dan1100 »

Judge: "Harassing call not sanctionable, but not happy and wasted my time. I'm busy ... convey my disdain"


User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6781
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#367

Post by Maybenaut »

spiduh wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:09 pm Well it looks like SOMEBODY did their homework, and SOMEBODY laid around in their hotel room "tucking in their shirt"...
Spiduh! Great to see you!


"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#368

Post by realist »

Res Ipsa wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:36 pm
realist wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:30 pm
I can't believe this is simply argument for a Motion to Dismiss.
Join the club.

People get their initial exposures to legal proceedings under the worst of circumstances. But Judge Brann is happy to let them all run wild.
He was indeed and now essentially converting this failed MtD to a injunction.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 4419
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#369

Post by SLQ »

realist wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:42 pm
Dan1100 wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:35 pm Judge: Offering Rudy to file a brief to in opposition to motion to dismiss by tomorrow and reply on thurs.

Judge: "Plaintiff's should consider whether to file new Motion for Prelim Injunction by tomorrow because of Amended Complaint and Defendants Thurs to Reply. Plaintiffs to Reply by Friday."

Judge: "2nd Amended Complaint. Need to file a Motion for Leave and see if Defendant concurs. Won't prejudge."
Well, that sucks.
Nah. He's making sure the record is complete and that Rudy has been afforded every opportunity to screw up the case.


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda
Sunrise
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#370

Post by Sunrise »

I’ve read that Rudy doesn’t care whether or not he wins this case, since his only objective is for SCOTUS to hear it and of course, to rule in his favor. Could SCOTUS accept this (or any other of the cases) on a ‘just because’ basis, or does there actually have to be a legal reason? I’m under the impression that only the latter is warranted, but there may be a method to Rudy’s madness after all. If so, we’re screwed.


M A C A Making America Care Again :daydream:
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#371

Post by realist »

SLQ wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:47 pm
realist wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:42 pm
Dan1100 wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:35 pm Judge: Offering Rudy to file a brief to in opposition to motion to dismiss by tomorrow and reply on thurs.

Judge: "Plaintiff's should consider whether to file new Motion for Prelim Injunction by tomorrow because of Amended Complaint and Defendants Thurs to Reply. Plaintiffs to Reply by Friday."

Judge: "2nd Amended Complaint. Need to file a Motion for Leave and see if Defendant concurs. Won't prejudge."
Well, that sucks.
Nah. He's making sure the record is complete.
Obviously not going to argue with you but I don't think that's necessary in this case. What's their appeal argument going to otherwise be, that the judge didn't let us convert to an injunction, just granted the MTD? Just sayin'. :lol: :bighug:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 13668
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: LDIT Supporters are "Shooketh"! -- Ali Akbar 11/29/20 #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#372

Post by Orlylicious »

PA 4.JPG

The judge says how busy he is then spends 10 minutes on local restaurants.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Avatar: LDIT's Court FAILS. Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring titular Mama June returns 3/21. TVShowsAce featured Fogbow love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS[/b]
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35660
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#373

Post by realist »

Sunrise wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:48 pm I’ve read that Rudy doesn’t care whether or not he wins this case, since his only objective is for SCOTUS to hear it and of course, to rule in his favor. Could SCOTUS accept this (or any other of the cases) on a ‘just because’ basis, or does there actually have to be a legal reason? I’m under the impression that only the latter is warranted, but there may be a method to Rudy’s madness after all. If so, we’re screwed.
With a normal SCOTUS I've not seen even one that would be taken up, and certainly not the voluntarily dismissed ones. :lol: With the current SCOTUS I would not be so confident and would even go so far as to posit they might take up any of them. Thomas and Alito would be automatic yeses in my opinion and then you just need 2, and though would not be difficult.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
chancery
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#374

Post by chancery »



User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 4179
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: 2020 Election Lawsuits

#375

Post by Turtle »

Maybe The Kraken is angling for an appeal due to counsel being batshit crazy.


Post Reply

Return to “Litigation to Overturn the Vote”