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

[Resume18]

he filed an appeal of the $5 million lost bet at the last minute on Monday.

interestingly, he has a new lawyer.

i don’t think he paid the old one.

When will one of these assholes be held accountable?

Plutocracies are bad, mkay.

[Rolodex]

He talked about being raptured. He better hope he is. It's his only hope of getting out of paying.

[northland10]

He moved into a larger warehouse and outlet store in Shakopee in 2022. He was probably reducing the other one already though I have no idea why he just didn't negotiate terminating that lease. He also has another smaller warehouse space in the same town, according to Google maps.

Sorry to be a kill joy.

[Luke]

Lindell did a Lindell Report with his lying grifter COO Patrick Colbeck about the SCOTUS case. It's on FrankSpeech, link below.

Lindell said his BLOCKBUSTER SCOTUS case was submitted "about a month ago" and hedged but thought a cert decision was imminent. Of course, he didn't know how to explain it that way.

Bob et al, when could SCOTUS put a stake through its irrelevant heart?

I'll cover it with a funny clip of Mike from the below. BTW he changed his opening, no more Bannon, now it's Trump fawning over "the pillow guy". Warning for those with weak tummies.


https://frankspeech.com/Video/supreme-c ... ck-colbeck

[realist]

No. 23-950
Title: Michael J. Lindell, et al., Petitioners
v.
United States, et al.
Docketed: February 29, 2024
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case Numbers: (22-3510)
Decision Date: September 22, 2023
Rehearing Denied: November 27, 2023

Date Proceedings and Orders
Feb 26 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 1, 2024)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Mar 13 2024 Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
Main Document
Mar 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.

[northland10]

Oh yeah, I forgotted. The blockbuster case is about voting machines the feds taking his phone.

[Chilidog]

meanwhile, in Lumpy’s other case


https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circu ... 4-1608?amp

[bob]

In the event Lindell is referring to the cert. petition that he bankrolled for Kari Lake, Maricopa County waived its response, and that petition has been deadlifted distributed for the April 19 conference.

[northland10]

In the event Lindell is referring to the cert. petition that he bankrolled for Kari Lake, Maricopa County waived its response, and that petition has been deadlifted distributed for the April 19 conference.

Yeah, this is the Kari Lake one.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... -1021.html

I can't keep up with his babble.

[northland10]

Such fun from her attorneys. It is nearing Klayman levels.

Jan 03 2024 Application (23A622) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 14, 2024 to February 15, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Jan 05 2024 Application (23A622) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 15, 2024.

Feb 01 2024 Application (23A622) to extend further the time from February 15, 2024 to March 14, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Written Request
Feb 05 2024 Application (23A622) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 14, 2024.

Mar 14 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2024)

Mar 20 2024 Motion to expedite considerarion filed by petitioner Kari Lake, et al.

Mar 27 2024 Waiver of right of respondent Pima County Board of Supervisors to respond filed.

Mar 27 2024 Waiver of right of respondent Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to respond filed.

Apr 02 2024 Supplemental Brief of Kari Lake, et al. submitted.

Apr 03 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.

Her team requested two extensions and then requested the consideration be expedited. If I were the respondents, I would have been tempted to wait until 17 April and then file the waiver.

A question for IAALs and others more knowledgeable than I, I thought supplemental briefs were not favored, and can you file it after the actual waiver or responses?

It's all moot anyway, or mute if I was a birther.

Edit: Answered my own question by reading the rules which I was too lazy to do earlier.

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling. A supplemental brief shall be restricted to new matter and shall follow, insofar as applicable, the form for a brief in opposition prescribed by this Rule. Forty copies shall be fled, except that a party proceeding in formal pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The supplemental brief shall be served as required by Rule 29.

[RTH10260]

Edit: Answered my own question by reading the rules which I was too lazy to do earlier.

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling. A supplemental brief shall be restricted to new matter and shall follow, insofar as applicable, the form for a brief in opposition prescribed by this Rule. Forty copies shall be fled, except that a party proceeding in formal pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The supplemental brief shall be served as required by Rule 29.

[bob]

SCOTUS:

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling.*

And Team Grift is on it!:

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 15.8, petitioners submit this supplemental brief regarding the ethical and legal implications of the respondents’ waiver of a brief in opposition (“BIO”) and their failure to respond to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite. Although petitioners reserve the right to move for monetary or nonmonetary sanctions under Rule 8.2, this supplemental brief focuses on the ethical and procedural issues related to respondents’ waiver of their BIOs.

* * *

Specifically, respondents have a duty to correct prior false material evidence presented to the lower courts, on which those courts relied to find petitioners’ injuries too speculative for Article III.

The "intervening matter" is shrouding Kari Lake!

I cannot believe how many thousands of dollars OPM was spent on this dreck. If you have new evidence, like you claimed in your motion to expedite, you first present it to the district court, "counselor."


* Helluva typo!

[noblepa]

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 15.8, petitioners submit this supplemental brief regarding the ethical and legal implications of the respondents’ waiver of a brief in opposition (“BIO”) and their failure to respond to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite. Although petitioners reserve the right to move for monetary or nonmonetary sanctions under Rule 8.2, this supplemental brief focuses on the ethical and procedural issues related to respondents’ waiver of their BIOs.

* * *

Specifically, respondents have a duty to correct prior false material evidence presented to the lower courts, on which those courts relied to find petitioners’ injuries too speculative for Article III.

If I am reading that correctly, Lake's lawyers seem to be reserving the right to ask for sanctions, because the respondent's attorneys did not oppose Lake's motion to extend the deadline to file. Amirite?

Lake's lawyers seem to be saying that the defendants' giving them exactly what they want is somehow a legal or ethical violation, worthy of punishment.

Or are they trying to argue that, by not opposing the motion to extend the deadline, the defendants have conceded that the plaintiff's case is correct?

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

It looks like they are trying to claim that defendamts have a duty to correct the record because she allegedly found new evidence in her favor (she didn't, and the information she is relying on was publicly available during or before the discovery phase) - failure to do so is in her view worthy of sanctions.

[noblepa]

It looks like they are trying to claim that defendamts have a duty to correct the record because she allegedly found new evidence in her favor (she didn't, and the information she is relying on was publicly available during or before the discovery phase) - failure to do so is in her view worthy of sanctions.

Okay, IANAL, so I don't truly understand all this. However, they seem to be complaining about the defendants not filing a Brief In Opposition (BIO). Wouldn't a BIO only be required in response to something that the plaintiff filed? And wouldn't it only be required if the defendant was, indeed, opposed to the filing?

Or, am I connecting the wrong dots?

[bob]

However, they seem to be complaining about the defendants not filing a Brief In Opposition (BIO). Wouldn't a BIO only be required in response to something that the plaintiff filed? And wouldn't it only be required if the defendant was, indeed, opposed to the filing?

Or, am I connecting the wrong dots?

It is a garbage pleading, designed only to impress the marks.

So completely high on their own supply, Lake's lawyers believe SCOTUS can and should sanction the respondents because they ("allegedly") repeatedly have failed to affirmatively correct various "misstatements" in the lower courts. And too also (with a pony thrown in) rule in Lake's favor.

It fractically wrong both legally and factually.

[Sam the Centipede]

Off Topic

Ah, a fractically wrong fling, I am learning some phrases today!

Over in the NY civil case I learnt about sua sponte bond bouncing, apparently rarely seen in the clerking world.

[Luke]

Thank you thank you!

Mike Lindell is absolutely certain that because the 9th Circuit rejected for standing, he's INVITED to present new evidence to SCOTUS. That's the reason, rejection of standing. Did Kurt Olsen feed him this line of bull*hit? Wonder how much ole Kurt is making off Mike the Mark this time.

[northland10]

SCOTUS:

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling.*

* Helluva typo!

My copy/paste from the rules was dropping I's. Not sure why. I fixed some but apparently missed one. Oops. Folks needed a laugh.

Edit: More specifically, it was dropping the first I in file and apparently, filing.

ETA again: and there was also "Forty copies shall be fled" I just tried again copying to here and word, and the same thing. It does not like Fil...

Their PDF create OCR appears to be turning Fi into a single letter, when I edited the PDF directly.

[Dave from down under]

[RTH10260]

Off Topic

My copy/paste from the rules was dropping I's. Not sure why. I fixed some but apparently missed one. Oops. Folks needed a laugh.

Edit: More specifically, it was dropping the first I in file and apparently, filing.

ETA again: and there was also "Forty copies shall be fled" I just tried again copying to here and word, and the same thing. It does not like Fil...

Their PDF create OCR appears to be turning Fi into a single letter, when I edited the PDF directly.

There is a thing in higher sophisticated typesetting that is called ligatures. The first wide character of a word followed by a slim on like an "i" will be merged into one glyph. The full Unicode character set has positions reserved for them. I guess the c&p will have transformed them to the simple first character possibly to place it within the leaner standard section of the Unicode. While ignoring that companion character.

LigaturesSample.png (24.28 KiB) Viewed 963 times

more reading: https://practicaltypography.com/ligatur ... ll-no.html

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I am now going to hijack this thread because of being gobsmacked by the many types of ligatures.

► Show Spoiler

ligature_instrument_technique.jpg (22.43 KiB) Viewed 893 times

download (10).jpeg (11.87 KiB) Viewed 893 times

Ligature vue 4 points de contact_kindlephoto-3915023.png (420.96 KiB) Viewed 893 times

[raison de arizona]

Mike Lindell says that Democrats would’ve won Texas in 2020 but AG Ken Paxton got 2 million votes thrown out.

[keith]

Mike Lindell says that Democrats would’ve won Texas in 2020 but AG Ken Paxton got 2 million votes thrown out.

So there you have it. If the Dems stole Az, Wi, Pa, but the GOP stole Tx, the Biden is still Pres.

ETA: I didn’t actually count.

[Luke]

Lindell is grifting hard on Lake v Fontes and asking for up to $2,500 donations! HURRY!

Lindell 1.JPG (123.15 KiB) Viewed 747 times

Lindell 2.JPG (169.89 KiB) Viewed 747 times

Lindell 3.JPG (150.8 KiB) Viewed 747 times

Lindell 4.JPG (136.24 KiB) Viewed 747 times

They are ALL EXCITED that the GA GOP filed an amicus! Took a look, it's by the same lawyer as the main case lol. His firm used to have... Herb Titus on board.

GA PLindell.JPG (100.66 KiB) Viewed 747 times

Quick thread on X with the info and mocking --