Fogbow

IANAL What is “MDPE”? I can’t find anything other than “Medium Density Polyurethane. I figured it’s probably something only IAALs would learn, and not need explanation outside of legal documents (like PHV?)
Also why is this filing so intent on replacing “Democratic” with “Democrat” except where it’s quoted, e.g. defendant #26. Democrat National Service Corp (sic DNC Services Corp) dba Democratic National Committee. It doesn’t even seem consistent on the same sentence. Then p. 17 replaces the dba name with “Democrat National Committee”.

I realize that’s a common, supposedly clever/subtle, way to needle progressives. Does this have a place in official filings?

Reddog wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:05 pm
IANAL What is “MDPE”?

I'm guessing it means multi-defendant political enterprise. But Davis is just making it up as he goes. The preferred style would be "This third enterprise is a multi-defendant political enterprise (“MDPE”) ....", to show both the full term and its acronym.

I realize that’s a common, supposedly clever/subtle, way to needle progressives. Does this have a place in official filings?

Just as much as "Gondor has no king" does.

In other words, rhetoric is a tool. Use it to your advantage, and don't attempt to use it when it gives your opponents an opportunity to mock you.

Great, thanks Bob. Makes sense.

I had to look 3 times to see that didn't say "mope" which would be a perfectly acceptable word to apply to the lawyer.

I assume this is on Dunford's stuff tonight but, I had to point out.

1. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended¹ Complaint (Doc. 145) (the “Complaint” or the “Second Amended Complaint”) moots the issues raised by the Ohio Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss.

Yes, right off the bat, a footnote (he is making Vidurke seem footnote adverse). What does it say?

¹ The Second Amended Complaint was amended “as matter of course” because Plaintiffs never served their Original Complaint on any Defendants but only served the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs are amending their complaint by right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), once within 21 days after service of a
motion under Rule 12.

Is this a thing? He did not serve the defendants on the original complaint so really, his first amended complaint is actually like an original complaint so he can now amend it.

Oh goody, another footnote.

2 All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Complaint

I just watched most of Mike's Twitch expose (demolition) of the responses in in re Gondor.
I fear for the future of Mike's hat. It was punished a lot this evening. "fuckaduck" did a lot of heavy lifting. As did sentences beginning with "Paul, you moron" or similar.
But I learned a lot of lawyering stuff. This is really good.
It's all performative nonsense twaddle with a filing fee attached. The audience is not the legal system, it is designed to impress the cult followers.

gshevlin2 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:16 pm I just watched most of Mike's Twitch expose (demolition) of the responses in in re Gondor.
I fear for the future of Mike's hat. It was punished a lot this evening. "fuckaduck" did a lot of heavy lifting. As did sentences beginning with "Paul, you moron" or similar.
But I learned a lot of lawyering stuff. This is really good.
It's all performative nonsense twaddle with a filing fee attached. The audience is not the legal system, it is designed to impress the cult followers.

"Fuckaduck" isn't a legal term? I just learned something new.

Millions of people (about 83,000,000) conspired to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.

Its called "an election".

I realize that a conspiracy charge can be brought against someone, even if they don't commit a crime, but doesn't the conspiracy have to the planning to commit a crime. Planning to prevent DJT from be re-elected is not a crime. It is a Constitutional Right.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:45 pm Millions of people (about 83,000,000) conspired to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.

Its called "an election".

I realize that a conspiracy charge can be brought against someone, even if they don't commit a crime, but doesn't the conspiracy have to the planning to commit a crime. Planning to prevent DJT from be re-elected is not a crime. It is a Constitutional Right.

I shall try to use the Plaintiff's argument in the goofball v MLB case as an example to show how you are wrong. People campaigning against Trump is considered intimidation as we are using intimidating tactics to force him to not pass his new big, beautiful laws/EOs. Because we will not vote for him if he signs these, we are forcing him to do what we want or risk not being reelected. This is depriving others of their civil rights to have his new laws and EOs. This won't apply to Biden because his laws are bad. It only applies to good laws.

I really wish I could say that I seriously exaggerated their argument.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:45 pm Millions of people (about 83,000,000) conspired to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.

Its called "an election".

I realize that a conspiracy charge can be brought against someone, even if they don't commit a crime, but doesn't the conspiracy have to the planning to commit a crime. Planning to prevent DJT from be re-elected is not a crime. It is a Constitutional Right.

NO! NO! NO!
You have now given them a New Idea. They will sue all of the electors who voted for Biden!

This is unbelievable. We talk about how close we came to disaster, but this is just just.

Arizona was one of six states where Trump wanted the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to order a new presidential election
Trump wanted Supreme Court to order new election in Arizona, other states
Documents obtained by the U.S. House Oversight Committee showed that former President Donald Trump wanted his Justice Department to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to order a half dozen states, including...
azmirror.com



Here's the horrible plan. The staffer sends this to DOJ officials with "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!"

Fu*k you, Molly A. Michael. May your name live in infamy and disgrace.


Here's the "proposed filing". Was so disgusted didn't get past page 7 yet.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... filing.pdf


***

To cleanse after that, if you've never seen this Biography on the Rat Pack, it's terrific. Lots of interesting details and history.

A&E Biography: The Rat Pack - Parts 1 & 2 (1999)

Question: does SCOTUS even have the power to order a repetition of a presidential election for a single state ? If yes what is the basis and what prerequisites would be necessary?

azmirror wrote:ask the U.S. Supreme Court to order a half dozen states, including Arizona, to hold new presidential elections and to bar them from casting their electoral votes for President-elect Joe Biden.

How would SCOTUS be able to bar voters from their presidential choice? Perhaphs just by ordering not to list Biden as candidate? This past impotus is well past his best-before date.

azmirror wrote:The proposed complaint, which was never filed by the Department of Justice,

essentially what the Kraken Team filed in several courts and lost all over the place.



PS. best to read the full article at

Trump wanted Supreme Court to order new election in Arizona, other states
By Jeremy Duda -June 15, 2021

Last Updated: June 15, 2021 5:12 pm


https://www.azmirror.com/2021/06/15/tru ... er-states/

NO! NO! NO! You have now given them a New Idea. They will sue all of the electors who voted for Biden!

My thoughts exactly, gshevlin2.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:04 am Question: does SCOTUS even have the power to order a repetition of a presidential election for a single state ? If yes what is the basis and what prerequisites would be necessary?

Look to Bush v. Gore: the key would be to find a violation of the federal due process clause.

But even then, the likely remedy would be to enjoin certification. Voting on a day other than on the authorized voting day would also be challenged.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:21 am This is unbelievable. We talk about how close we came to disaster, but this is just just.

Arizona was one of six states where Trump wanted the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to order a new presidential election
Trump wanted Supreme Court to order new election in Arizona, other states
Documents obtained by the U.S. House Oversight Committee showed that former President Donald Trump wanted his Justice Department to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to order a half dozen states, including...
azmirror.com
....
To cleanse after that, if you've never seen this Biography on the Rat Pack, it's terrific. Lots of interesting details and history.

A&E Biography: The Rat Pack - Parts 1 & 2 (1999)

1.

2. The ONLY Oceans 11 is the Rat Pack Oceans 11. Fight me.

I love the George Clooney/ Brad Pitt Oceans 11. I tried watching the original Rat Pack Ocean's 11 but my 1960's mindset is long gone and I couldn't finish it. It wasn't as complex as the newest one and I got bored. Not fighting Slim, just saying....

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:37 pm I love the George Clooney/ Brad Pitt Oceans 11. I tried watching the original Rat Pack Ocean's 11 but my 1960's mindset is long gone and I couldn't finish it. It wasn't as complex as the newest one and I got bored. Not fighting Slim, just saying....

I think that's the reason I liked the original. To me it was more believable. The high tech, all the casinos share one vault plot made me shake my head.

Plus, the credits at the end of the original, as they all dejectedly walked past The Sands...Classic!

/thread jack

Good for the Rat Pack standing up for Sammy Davis, Jr.!

AZ Attorney General

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 6:37 pm I love the George Clooney/ Brad Pitt Oceans 11. I tried watching the original Rat Pack Ocean's 11 but my 1960's mindset is long gone and I couldn't finish it. It wasn't as complex as the newest one and I got bored. Not fighting Slim, just saying....

Everybody loves the Cloontang....