Mike Lindell's Election Shenanigans, FrankSpeech and #MyPillow #FAILS - 6/28/61 Cancer / Ox

[sad-cafe]

I want to see him suffer so badly

[Chilidog]

On Wednesday, during an exclusive interview with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the election integrity advocate shared with Illinois Review his plan to file a case with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 15th in Washington, DC – hand delivering a case that he says will “secure our election platforms and save our country.”

Lindell, who is on a 3-day tour in Illinois, is making news, explaining, “After three years of hard work, we are finally taking our case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will not stop until we secure our elections.”

The MyPillow CEO is on a nationwide tour to promote his Election Crime Bureau – an initiative made possible by his significant self-funding and donations to Lindell Offense Fund by others who share his passion for election integrity. To date, Lindell has over 300,000 volunteers, including in Illinois.

Lindell promises that the case that he’s taking to the nation’s highest court will not disappoint, adding that the filing includes “explosive evidence,” and he’s confident that should the court take his case, the ruling will be unanimous.

The MyPillow CEO remains a target of the progressive liberals, and his company has lost over $100 million in sales over the last few years as stores including Walmart, Bed Bath & Beyond and Kohl’s have pulled MyPillow products off the shelves in protest of Lindell’s election integrity initiatives and for his continued support of President Donald Trump.

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinois ... html?amp=1

[much ado]

So can filing a case directly with the Supreme Court EVER succeed?

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

So can filing a case directly with the Supreme Court EVER succeed?

There are some instances where filing with SCOTUS directly is the correct path, spelled out in the Constitution.

This is not one of them.

[bob]

So can filing a case directly with the Supreme Court EVER succeed?

Technically: yes!

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction for disputes between states, as well as disputes involving "Ambassadors [and] other public Ministers and Consuls."

Lindell is none of those, so anything he files while asserting original jurisdiction will be summarily denied.

Now Lindell may be pulling a Klayman/Kreep, etc., and actually is referring to filing some me-too amicus brief in a case that's properly pending in SCOTUS.

Too also: Lindell has a long history of broken promises, especially about lawsuits.

[Dave from down under]

What a puff piece by the Illinois Review.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

What a puff piece by the Illinois Review.

It's their standard fare.

[Foggy]

300,000 volunteers my butt.

[Atticus Finch]

Actually there is a dispute between states.
His state of mind versus the state of reality.

[tek]

He's taking his pillowcase to the Supreme Court?

[RTH10260]

On Wednesday, during an exclusive interview with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the election integrity advocate shared with Illinois Review his plan to file a case with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 15th in Washington, DC – hand delivering a case that he says will “secure our election platforms and save our country.”

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinois ... html?amp=1

Mike needs to get in touch with Orly Taitz to see how hand delivery to SCOTUS is correctly done

I wonder if he checked on the rules of SCOTUS for the number of copies, the paper size and the colour of the cover sheet required

[noblepa]

On Wednesday, during an exclusive interview with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the election integrity advocate shared with Illinois Review his plan to file a case with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 15th in Washington, DC – hand delivering a case that he says will “secure our election platforms and save our country.”

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinois ... html?amp=1

Mike needs to get in touch with Orly Taitz to see how hand delivery to SCOTUS is correctly done

I wonder if he checked on the rules of SCOTUS for the number of copies, the paper size and the colour of the cover sheet required

Doesn't SCOTUS also require that submissions be printed on an offset press? It is my understanding that you can't simply use MS Word to print off a few copies on your HP inkjet printer.

I have heard that there are several printing companies in DC that specialize in preparing submissions to SCOTUS.

[RTH10260]

I wonder if anyone told Mike The Pillow Guy that the real magick of the incantation only happens when the envelope is correctly plastered with USPS $50 stamps

[jcolvin2]

Doesn't SCOTUS also require that submissions be printed on an offset press? It is my understanding that you can't simply use MS Word to print off a few copies on your HP inkjet printer.

I have heard that there are several printing companies in DC that specialize in preparing submissions to SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court does require that briefs be printed in pamphlet form, with color coded covers. There are several specialty printing companies. Not all are located in DC. Several years ago, we used a company located in Omaha (Cockle Printing) who did a fine job. More recently, we used a company located in DC who also did a great job. The turn around at both companies - from Word document to printed pamphlet - was extremely quick.

[Chilidog]

didn’t he try to pul this “direct to SCOTUS” scam a few years ago?

[Slim Cognito]

That's what I was thinking. The supreme Court was going to find in his favor 9-0 that the election was stolen from trump.

[jemcanada2]

So no inartfully collated and defectively stapled submissions?

[bill_g]

"300,000 volunteers, including in Illinois".

Well, that's a relief. I was so concerned Illinois wouldn't pull their weight.

[pipistrelle]

What a puff piece by the Illinois Review.

It's their standard fare.

Is it "journalism" like NewsMax?

[bill_g]

What a puff piece by the Illinois Review.

It's their standard fare.

Is it "journalism" like NewsMax?

I would say more like E! or People.

[jcolvin2]

So no inartfully collated and defectively stapled submissions?

The rules appear designed to minimize the possibility that whack-a-doodle material gets through. Also, the attorney who files the brief must be a member of the Supreme Court bar. The qualifications to join are not too difficult: you only have to have been a member of the bar of one of the states or territories for three years, with no discipline during the preceding three years. However, you also have to pay a fee and have two current members attest to your good character. This may be an effective barrier against some of the more eccentric lawyers.

There are about 75,000 members of the Supreme Court bar. My guess is that a healthy fraction of that number are vanity members who have never actually filed anything in the Supreme Court, but wanted to put on their resume that they were admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court. Several thousand cases get filed each year with the Supreme Court, but the court accepts only 75 or so for decision. While I have not run the statistics, probably half of those accepted are handled by a crowd of “usual suspects,” often former Supreme Court clerks or attorneys from the Solicitor General’s office.

[northland10]

Did we miss this filed at the end of February?

I have not read but since it has a lower court ruling, I assume it may be about his phone.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 3-950.html

[realist]

Did we miss this filed at the end of February?

I have not read but since it has a lower court ruling, I assume it may be about his phone.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 3-950.html

Yep.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The extraordinary number of conclusions in the opinion below that conflict starkly with applicable precedents smacks of a judicial process that strains to reach a result based on the identity of the parties rather than the rule of law. The maneuvers of the Eighth Circuit to evade the governing precedents that protect Lindell’s First and Fourth Amendment rights have produced a decision crafted to apply only to Lindell, unanchored to the well-established legal principles that safeguard the rights of everyone else. The case presents the following questions:
1. Whether a preliminary injunction may be granted if it requests the ultimate relief sought in the litigation.
2. Whether a warrant is invalid for failure to comply with the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment where the warrant authorizes the seizure of all electronic data stored on a cell phone

KURT B. OLSEN
OLSEN LAW, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 408-7025 ko@olsenlawpc.com

PATRICK M. MCSWEENEY
Counsel of Record
ROBERT J. CYNKAR
MCSWEENEY, CYNKAR & KACHOUROFF, PLLC
13649 Office Place
Suite 101
Woodbridge, VA 22192
(703) 621-3300
patrick@mck-lawyers.com rcynkar@mck-lawyers.com

Petition: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2 ... 0Final.pdf

[pipistrelle]

Who's Kurt B. Olsen?

[raison de arizona]

Who's Kurt B. Olsen?

Lawyer subject to discipline in AZ debacle: https://azmirror.com/briefs/state-bar-g ... attorneys/