BC POLITICS
Saved by @Jacobtldr

Good morning, electoral lunacy followers. Welcome to what I suspect will be the 2020 equivalent of the Orly Taitz litigation: Sidney Powell Sues Everoyen For LAL Of Teh ThInGs

This is the first of what will (hopefully) be a limited number of #Kraken-related threads.

 That said, I doubt the number will be limited. I think Sidney Powell is the Orly Taitz of the Biden Administration.

And I doubt I've acquired enough maturity since my younger birther-watching days to ignore these. So, yes, at least for cases with public dockets, I'm here.
We've got two filings so far - a Michigan one (King v Whitmer) that has been filed, and a Georgia one (Pearson v Kemp) that cannot presently be located on PACER.

This may be because there are parallel Quorts not in the system but maybe it just didn't get filed.
Here's how I'm going to deal with that - I'll start livetweeting King (the filed one) in a little bit, after I do some turkey prep. I'll do that in this thread, but probably even slower and more interrupted than usual - so you might just want to bookmark and come back later.
Tonight, if there's interest, I might be both willing and able to stream a read of the (maybe unfiled) GA case on Twitch tonight.
(Seriously, my choice won't necessarily be based on the majority outcome of the poll - if there's enough interest I'll stream regardless.)
I'll pick up with this shortly. At the start, I'll note that it's not clear from the caption whether she's suing Benson in her capacity as both Sec'y of State and Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers or if Benson and the Board are different entities, because what are Oxford commas?
Be back in a bit - the bird needs attention.
OK - the bird is in and the first family Zoom of the day is concluded, so I can pick back up.

When last we left the heroic #Kraken, we were looking at a cover page that spelled "district" two different ways and sues the Board Ofstate Canvassers. Let's see where we go from here.
(By the way - we've got some in-house social isolation going here, so it's a strange Thanksgiving. So thanks to those who asked, but it's actually pretty easy to do this today.)
Right - so we start by saying that we're definitely pleading fraud, so that will make for some interesting issues when the defendants, if ever properly served, mention Rule 9.
For the nonlawyers - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 says that your complaint needs to meet certain requirements above and beyond what's normally required in a complaint.
Honestly, this first paragraph is distinguishable from something Orly Taitz would have filed only in that the spelling and grammar are marginally better. Right down to the references to eye witnesses and expert witnesses.
So if you see me, in the course of these threads, start referring to "witlesses" and "daffydavits," don't credit me with originality. These are terms used in the birther watching community back in the day.
Based on this footnote, we're gonna be lucky if we only see two Krakenings. Sounds like we could see up to four - and possibly more as desperation mounts.

Oh joy.
And she's reinforcing this as a fraud case in the next paragraph, too, so, yeah, it'll be fun to see her respond to the Rule 9 issue in her response to the inevitable motions to dismiss.
BRB - gonna fire up Westlaw and see if I can figure out what this is about, because based on Cornell LII it's a statutory section that doesn't exist.
OK, I found it. It's 52 USC §20701. I was confused, because Title 50 is "War and National Defense" and only goes up to like §4852.
This footnote is also very much in line with Orly Taitz's filings. This is FN 2. The reader has no idea what "Dominion" is, let alone why they have logs, and the final "incorruptible audit log" thing is also unexplained.

She's assuming that the reader lives on her planet.
Alleging that the state government is engaged in an extensive and deliberate criminal conspiracy will go over well. It's also Taitzian.

Also, I wonder what makes Detroit "especially egregious."
Making it clear that these are definitely frauding and ballot-stuffing claims.

So it looks like they finally found a lawyer unethical enough to sign a pleading with this stuff.
So she's claiming sufficient specificity based on her "testimony incorporated within" - so this could be interesting. By which I mean entertaining.
I think Dominion probably will need to find a way to respond to all this - the nutball right are making them toxic in ways that will undoubtedly harm their business.
For clarity: by "all this" I mean the full set of outrage peddling and scapegoating, not simply this filing.
Wait, the "MichiganBoard of State Canvassers"? I thought she was suing the "Michigan Board Ofstate Canvassers."
So we've got a "Redacted Declaration" as Exhibit 1, with no indication that an unredacted version will be forthcoming. That's clearly the sign of a very serious lawyer with great familiarity with law and other lawyerings.
We're also seeing allegations that vote fraud in Michigan in 2020 is connected with a dictator who died in 2013.

I will be *delighted* if defense lawyers snarkily request that the court take judicial notice that Hugo Chavez has been dead for 7 years.
I mean I'm not 100% sure that it's a fact that can be the subject of judicial notice really, but it's also the kind of thing that's so worth a try.
Also, did she spill something on her keyboard that destroyed her space bar? And if so, was it whatever substance she was consuming that fueled this "pleading"?
OK, so now we're quoting from the "DominionWhistleblower Report." Which indicates that the person who drafted the report was a "direct witness."

I'll be right back - I've got to go look at Exhibit 1 and see who this is, because if there's a deposition it's gonna be lit.
https://t.co/LAapX2FEAr
What

the

sweeteverlivingfuck

is this even?????
OhmyGOD

She REDACTED THE DECLARANT'S NAME?????????
I just checked the docket - there's no indication anything was filed under seal. There's no indication there's any intent to file anything under seal.

Her leadoff document, which documents an alleged international conspiracy, doesn't disclose who the affiant IS?
OK. For the nonlawyers, let me explain.

The American justice system is adversarial. That is a fundamental thing. It's like trial by combat but with less blood and more snark.

This means that the opposing party gets to - and this is important - challenge your testimony.
When you put forward a witness, the other side gets to challenge their testimony. That can't effectively be done when you don't know who they are. (This is above and beyond the more fundamental issue that you can't judge credibility without knowing who is making the allegation.)
If your witness needs to remain hidden due to legitimate concerns for safety and so on, there are ways that can happen. But those ways do not include hiding their identity from the court and the other side's lawyers. There are procedures. None of them seem to be happening here.
The submission of this document is, to be blunt, sanctionable. It'll probably slide in the interests of a speedy GTFOOMCR* but it should be sanctioned.

* the final half of that stands for "of my court room." You should be able to get the rest.
But it gets even better - because, apparently, her witless is "of sound mine."
John 11:35
Back to the main document. I'll look at the rest of that drek later.

So we've got a nameless affiant - actually, that should be 'affiant,' the scare quotes are virtually mandatory - alleging that Smartmatic engaged in a conspiracy with Chavez.

Did she submit a declaration?
Sorry for the delay - basting
Right. So I went looking to see if Powell (or any other attorney) submitted a declaration to accompany the exhibits. I don't see one.

I do note that the exhibit numbering seems to go "8, 9, 10, 101, 102" which might be a numbering system somewhere but if so I don't know where.
So as far as we know, this Exhibit 1 is just something she found on the Internet (I fear this may be literally true) and not actually something she can submit as testimony without just utterly shattering her Rule 11 obligations to the court.
Truly we live in the dumbest of timelines.
This is off-the-rails nuts. Now we're jumping from Smartmatic to Dominion - with a single, lonely, inexplicably italicized "of" as a bonus - with no explanation of the link. And we're turning to the "Declaration of HarriHursti" (Who may or may not actually be "Harri Hursti").
There is, of course, no explanation of who Harri Hursti is, whether this purports to be expert or fact testimony, what the basis is for either, and if I had printed this I would have just thrown the file physically across the room and ohgod it's only page 4.
So let's look at Exhibit 107 - which turns out to be RECYCLED WITHOUT EXPLANATION FROM A DIFFERENT CASE? THIS ISN'T HER OWN WITNESS? WHAT THE CRAP??
Seriously, what the hell is this other case even? What's its relevance? Why was this declaration submitted? This is purported expert testimony. Has this person been accepted as an expert and if so in what and for what purpose?
You cannot - I feel like this should go without saying - just slap an exhibit label on random crap and dump it into the docket and expect to be taken seriously, let alone have something accepted as evidence. This. Is. Not. How. Anything. Works.
Also, these are statements that appear to allege that bad things can happen, they are not even offered as evidence that bad things did happen.
Paragraph 9 is special. Just loads and loads of factual assertions without citations to anything, including her less-than-52-card-deck of daffydavits.
Seriously, this is a paragraph jam-packed with what we refer to in the trade as "conclusory allegations," which is a lawyerly way of saying, "yeah, you're just pulling this stuff right out of your ass."
Making insinuating statements like this to suggest wrongdoing or malfeasance that you cannot prove does not play well in court. At all.
Either they disregarded those concerns or they decided that they had been sufficiently addressed between the time the "Texas Board of elections" [sic] rejected the system and Michigan accepted it.

Neither scenario gives rise to a claim of any kind.
Also, the rejection by Texas needs a cite, the "disregarded all the concerns" is a conclusory allegation and just sweet lord what am I reading here?
So she's submitted an unauthenticated paper of some kind from somewhere without submitting the CV of the alleged "expert" (who she hasn't apparently retained)?
How -- just how -- just what the hell - HOW DO YOU EVEN?
Exhibit 2 is a paper from somewhere. That is all we can say about it. There is no indication of source on it anywhere, so it's impossible to tell whether it's a preprint or peer reviewed, or even whether it's from a book or a journal.

And it's printed in landscape. Badly.
This is absolutely bloody disgraceful legal work.
Oh yeah - and there's no PINCITE for the quote, so if I want to find the context I have to crawl through the whole landscape-printed with cut-off footers paper to find it.

Courts just love that.
And - just putting the cherry on top of the nuts on top of the whipped cream on top of this stale turd sundae - the paper hasn't been OCRed.
I can't find it. Not only can't I find it, I can't find anywhere in there that discuses rewriting a program or physically hacking. And the authors - there are more than one - seem to refer to themselves in the first-person plural; the alleged quote is first-person singular.
That's not to say that the quote isn't in the paper, of course. It might be in the parts that were cut off when the landscape thing happened, but I'm really starting to doubt it's in there.
Oh good. Now we've got an "expert" who is at least being claimed as someone who knows they are providing evidence for the plaintiffs.

More from Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
I've been trying to think that through - not just legally, but judicially.

The more thinking I do the less serious - and more ludicrous - the entire thing looks. And the more obvious it becomes that this is the proposal of deeply unwell individuals who are not thinking clearly.


On the legal side, I read through the list of emergency powers - the whole list - that was assembled by the Brennan Center. Nothing on that list fits. Nothing comes even

It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any executive order along the lines of what has been discussed would be legal. In this case, it can be taken as a given that one or more targeted jurisdictions would dash right off to the courthouse.

Standing would not, it should go without saying, be likely to be an issue. I doubt redressability would either. I think it's very likely that restraining orders and injunctions would be swiftly issued.

That's the legal side, to the extent it's possible to speculate on that at all at this point. Basically, there's no readily apparent legal basis for such a thing, so it probably wouldn't be legal.

That's the easy part. Now for the nuttier side - the logistics.
SOCIETY
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:

1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.

2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."

Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.


There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
COURT
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Nonlawyer Explainer Thread: On Keeping One's Mouth Shut

It occurs to me that certain private-jet-flying seditionists who continue to yammer on Twitter about their DC excursions provide us with the opportunity to do a little hypo to explore the benefits of silence.

So let's explore what a hypothetical law enforcement interview *might* look like in this situation. I'm not - I want to make clear - drawing from experience as a lawyer here.

I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.

Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.

My father in law is a now-retired homicide cop, and we've had a lot of discussions (especially since I started law school) about criminals and interviews over the years.

So with that in mind, let's look at this hypo.

ALSO - Simplifying for Twitter character counts.

*Knock*
*Door opens*
Agent: Ms [Name]? I'm Agent Smith, and this is Agent Jones. We're with Agency. We'd like to talk to you if you've got a minute.

Ms X: Oh? Is this about that thing at the Capitol?

[Yes, it seems insane but if you're worried about something specific and the cops show up, blurting out something like that is totally a thing that can happen.]
FOR LATER READ
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous performative litigation.

New filing in Orly Tatiz's bonkers attempt to halt the 2nd Impeachment trial. It's a gloriously burning train wreck of mangled formatting and hideous typography.

Let's dig

For those who may have forgotten, this is the case we saw last week - the one where Orly took the 12(b)(6) game to the next level by LITERALLY forgetting to include actual claims in her complaint.

So technically it's still unclear what she's suing over.

And, frankly, it's not like I can talk about the merits of this one because there aren't any. But the sheer stunning insanity of the formatting alone makes this worth a thread.

Even though, honestly, it's not the worst Orly has produced.

For context, the text below comes from the State of Hawaii's 2012 response to a motion for reconsideration in one of the birther cases.

"an inartfully collated, defectively stapled, and misordered collection of pages" is still one of my favorite descriptions of a filing ever.


Just to start with, apparently we're putting the caption on both sides of the (incomplete) line now. Single spaced on one side, double spaced on the other, no less. With everything but the judge's name in caps.
SOCIETY

More from Politics

Cancel the Dementiacrats - Stu Cvrk
Cancel the Dementiacra...
@STUinSD
Thread – The Buffoon in the White House (Irony)

1. A pal passed this to me the other day, and I saved it for today. The author is unknown (at least to me), but this has been posted on a number of blogs. An excellent read!
POLITICS
Brian Cates
Brian Cates
@drawandstrike
So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?


I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
POLITICS
Advertisement
Edwin Hayward
Edwin Hayward
@uk_domain_names
Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...


You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea


But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster


And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical


Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
POLITICS
Timothy Anderson
Timothy Anderson
@AndersonBooz
1/ A Short Thread About Civility and Calling Politicians Liars.

Nice people are sometimes uncomfortable that I call some politicians "liar". And I don't apologize for it.

But I don't call every politician "liar". Only the ones who deliberately tell provable lies and do so

2/ repeatedly. A lie is different from an accidental misstatement. For example, when @michaelaglasgo lied about her church's carbon tax, it could have been a genuine mistake. But she doubled down by telling other lies. And has since been caught in more.

#cdnpoli #abpoli #ableg

3/ When @KayceeMaduYEG is caught lying, he doesn't do the right thing. He just plows ahead. As if lying doesn't matter.

So which is more uncivil: calling out people who lie a lot OR being in a position of public trust and lying to people in the first place?

4/ I think it's important that once a politician is found to lie repeatedly, like @jkenney , we never forget that anything they say could be a lie. We need to always weigh it. Look for lies of omission.

Civil discourse cannot survive if politicians lie all the time. It can't.

5/ So as rude as it might be, when members of @UCPCaucus tell lies, we should be calling them "liar" every time. As long as they think they're getting away with it, they won't stop. So shame them.

If the politician is a lawyer, report their behaviour to the Law Society.
POLITICS
legalnerd
legalnerd
@alegalnerd
1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Max Fagin
Max Fagin
@MaxFagin
November is here, and that means a massive shift is coming. And by "massive" I am of course referring to the redefinition of the kilogram unit of mass that the world has been building up to for more than 100 years. Let me explain:


1/ I've had an unhealthy fascination with metrology (the study of measurement) ever since my 2nd year as a physics major when I took a class devoted to duplicating historic physics experiments, so please indulge me for going into heavy detail (get it?) about the kilogram.

2/ So what actually *defines* a unit of measurement? If you're American, you probably know a mile is 5280 feet and a foot is 12 inches and an inch is 2.54 centimeters etc. But where does this chain of definitions end? Is it turtles all the way down?

3/ It's actually not! For all units (even the imperial units used in America) the answers all end with the Système International (SI) unit definitions established and maintained for over 100 years by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIMP) in France.

4/ At the base of this tower are the SI base units. Just 7 SI base units define every other unit in existence. They are:

Kilogram, kg (mass)
Meter, m (distance)
Second, s (time)
Kelvin, K (temp)
Ampere, A (electric current)
Candela, cd (luminous intensity)
Mole, mol (quantity)
SCIENCE
Buzz Chronicles
Buzz Chronicles
@buzz_chronicles
@SaveToBookmarks Namaste! You can find it here. Original tweet by @AchuthArora: "@OllieEmberson @buzz_chronicles @rattibha @SaveToBookmarks save as Workouts". Thanks! ✌

Hi! Pleasure is mine. Original tweet by @SaveToBookmarks: "@AchuthArora @OllieEmberson @buzz_chronicles @rattibha Cool mate!

I saved this ...". See You soon! 👌
ALL
Advertisement
Suhail
Suhail
@Suhail
1/ The first 18 months of starting a company is often life or death. I must've made 5 different companies that each failed within 9 mo. 😭 Each time the company failed I figured out what I could do better. Eventually startup #6 got to $40K/mo by month 18. Here’s what I learned...

2/ Stay focused! Ignore things that are a waste of time: meetups & conferences, meetings with no clear agenda, fundraising if you're not fundraising, reading lots of tech media articles, etc. Every week should feel like significant progress in the first year.

3/ Your first 5 hires will be the difference between life or death. Choose carefully. Be picky. Many of the things we do at the company still are a result of those early hires' legacy. Have fun as a tight knit team. It will change & evolve as you get bigger so enjoy this moment.

4/ Growth may be flat for the first 9 months. It's gonna be okay. Almost every company has experienced this: Airbnb had to sell cereal in-between, Slack failed as a gaming company first, Tesla sold only 147 cars after 6 years! You probably won't be an overnight success either.

5/ In the beginning, do customer support yourself. You will learn a lot about why your product sucks. I did 5,000+ support tickets when it was the two of us. Delight customers & fix things fast while you learn. It will help you build an amazing intuition about your customers.
STARTUPS
STEALTH JEFF
STEALTH JEFF
@drawandstrike
Ok I was wrong about theHouse. 2 years of legislative gridlock = not fun. Few bills passing.

Control of the House is useless when it comes to keeping Trump from declassifying all the SpyGate docs. Or stopping an Inspector General from releasing a report.

Trump still gets control of judicial appointments so we can expect another 100 judges over the next two years. This time there’ll be no McCain or Flake playing the Maverick role with their swing vote.

That new margin in the Senate is huge if another Supreme Court seat comes open.

So from the responses I’m getting, people seem to think if Trump declassifies the Spygate stuff now, nothing happens.

Are you under the impression federal prosecutors have to wait until CONGRESS finishes an investigation and makes criminal referrals before the DOJ can act?

There’s a federal grand jury on McCabe right now. Did Congress ever finish it’s investigation and make a referral to the DOJ against him?

No.

BUT INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ DID. On finishing his McCabe leak report.

Funny how nobody remembers that.
POLITICS
Antonio Garc\xeda Mart\xednez
Antonio García Martíne...
@antoniogm
Observing the public conversation around FB, and the private ones happening among techies and ex-FBers, I think the mutual misunderstanding is worse than when I set out two years (and 500 pages) ago to (in a small way) bridge that gulf.

We're basically fucked.

The tech world has gotten so huge, self-reinforcing, and insulated from reality they can no longer even vaguely look at themselves (and their actions) as others do. They just live on a different planet than most people.

Conversely, the average tech consumer doesn't understand the technology that has slowly taken over their lives, and their designated emissaries to figure it out--politicians, pundits, regulators, journalists--understand it barely better than they do, and have their own agendas.

To say more than generalities for a moment, here's what I think is likely the core problem.

Techies take weird, improbable visions, and make them realities: some BS pitch deck to a VC, mixed with money and people, really does turn into some novel thing.

Most people work inside a legacy industry that's evolved that way over time (usually for good reasons), and they think about the future via some analogy with their present (which is a function of a long-ago past). The interruption that tech will introduce is often hard to grasp.
TECH