Tag: law

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, EMERGENCY, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. DOUG DUCEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Arizona, and KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as the Arizona Secretary of State, Defendants.

District of Arizona admission scheduled for 12/9/2020

It won’t do any good, even though it absolutely should. But it, and many other similar legal actions, will retroactively justify the actions that the God-Emperor appears on the verge of taking. Once it is sufficiently clear that the courts and the legislatures have completely failed to perform their constitutional duties, the President will perform his.

Or so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rebuffed a long-shot election challenge Saturday from one of President Trump’s top boosters in Congress, balking at his suggestion that it throw out every ballot cast by mail or designate the state’s legislature to decide who won the state.

In a unanimous decision, the justices declared that U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Butler) and the seven Republican plaintiffs in the suit had waited too long to bring their lawsuit alleging that the 2019 law, passed by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, which created no-excuse mail voting in the state for the first time was unconstitutional and “illegally implemented.”

Instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute, they waited until their candidate lost to challenge the mechanism by which some 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted this year, the court wrote in a terse, three-page order.

I very, very much doubt that this is a surprise to the Trump team. Remember, wait two days…. It’s a bit strange, though. If the law flies in the face of the state constitution, then it presumably continues to do so regardless of when it is formally challenged. Does unconstitutionality really have a time limit?

There will be no rapid certification of the PA election results and the attempt of the Governor and the Secretary of State to ram through the election fraud there will not be permitted. From the ruling issued by Judge Patricia McCullough:

In careful consideration of the exigencies and time constraints in this matter of statewide and national import, and the longstanding constitutional mandate that every citizen of this Commonwealth is entitled to no less than a fair and free election, it was necessary to preliminarily enjoin, on an emergency and temporary basis, Executive Respondents from undertaking any other actions with respect to the certification of the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections, if indeed anything else needs to be done, pending an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the facts of this matter and to determine if the dispute is moot. Inasmuch as the Secretary had not certified the remaining results of the 2020 general election, it was also necessary to enjoin, on an emergency and preliminary basis, any attempt to certify these results as well….

 There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C. §5 does not expire until December 8, 2020,and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. 11 Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

Notice, in particular, that the petitioners, who are a proxy for the Trump campaign, have been officially ruled to have “a likelihood of success on the merits” because the corrupt elected politicians, described here as “Executive Respondents” violated the Pennsylvania constitution by illegally applying the unconstitutional expansion of mail-in ballot procedures.

Translation: many, if not all, of those mail-in ballots for Biden are illegal and will not count. #bidenlost

There shouldn’t be much doubt about how the PA legislature is going to vote, now that the Republican legislators have been shown at least an amount of the true extent of the fraud:

President Donald Trump on Wednesday summoned Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature to the White House after a GOP hearing in Gettysburg in which Trump phoned in to reassert his false claim that he “won Pennsylvania by a lot.”

But on Thursday, no one wanted to talk about the meeting.

The White House did not issue a public statement about the visit, and lawmakers who made the trip to Washington were silent.

 Don’t forget that the Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election is currently in play:

Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Based on the evidence being presented in the two Powell filings, it appears that an assessment will be delivered that will require the block of certain interests in property presently possessed by various individuals. Meanwhile, one thing that has largely passed uncommented in light of last Friday’s canceled hearing in PA is that Dominion Voting Systems has publicly stated that it is “under litigation“.

A roundtable discussion with Dominion Voting Systems was canceled overnight. Dominion says it is under litigation and can not answer questions at this time.

Interesting. By whom are they being sued? 

UPDATE: The conclusion below is from the exhibit supporting paragraph 14. This exhibit, which is testimonial evidence in the form of an affadavit from an expert witness, proves a lot of the information released prior to the court filing was accurate, right down to the identities of the Serbian programmers working for Dominion.

In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber security. This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results. 

UPDATE: The President is excising the Deep State from defense policy:

Several high profile members of the Defense Policy Board were removed on Wednesday by the Trump administration, in yet another purge of longstanding foreign policy experts and national security establishment figures in the final days of the Trump era, according to three defense officials.

Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.

The Defense Policy Board is an outside advisory group of former high profile national security officials who “provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent, informed advice and opinions concerning matters of defense policy in response to specific tasks from the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense,” according to their website.

“As part of long-considered changes, we can confirm that several members of the Department’s Defense Policy Board have been removed. We are extremely grateful for their dedicated service, commitment, and contributions to our national security. Future announcements for new members of the board will be made soon,” the third official said.

The first two officials said the members removed also included former Chief of Naval Operations, retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief operating officer at the Pentagon Rudy De Leon and former Bush deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II. 

However, these are not the final days of the Trump era. That’s why he’s making the changes. He should invite William S. Lind as one of the replacements.

 A second lawyer writes of his initial impression of Powell’s GA lawsuit.

1. This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they’ve grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I’ve not even completed reading it, I’m taking it slow.
2. It’s now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she’s representing here, she’s representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight.  Like with Roger Stone, she’s outside the system. 
3. This suit is a big reason why General Flynn was pardoned this week. Now, the corrupt Flynn trial judge can’t waste time or resources by demanding Powell file extra briefs or come to court and distract her from this. That great Dem delay tactic has been neutralized; Powell is all in on this. 
4. Page 9, Paragraph 14. Holy shit. 
5. For about 7 days now, the SJW defense rhetoric I’ve heard was, in part, “Oh yeah? When they going to prove this in court? Put up or shut up.” Now, after Rudy’s hearings yesterday and Powell’s filing last night, they’ve put up—-they put it on the line. Big time. 
6. The Democratic party lawyers just shit their pants. Biden did as well, but he does that every morning. Their Thanksgiving is officially ruined; they are all going to be working all holiday weekend to file a response.

An experienced attorney analyzes Sidney Powell’s legal filing in GA concerning the electoral fraud aided and abetted by GA politicians and election officials. The 104-page PDF complaint can be found here. Note that she also filed a lawsuit in MI, which is not analyzed here.

I have been a practicing attorney for 25+ years. The last 15 years I have spent mainly federal court representing persons accused of crimes, so I am quite familiar with federal court, federal procedure and other matters. Here is my take on Ms. Powell’s complaint. I aim to be dispassionate, not because I do not care but because we should be honest. I am not going to smooth over issues just because I hope Ms. Powell wins.

My point is to give background and overview and to advise on what to watch in the future. I have tried to make this post generally neutral and informative. I could not locate exhibits, which are crucial, but they are cited many times in the complaint. So, here are my few observations as an attorney with decades’ in federal court:

1. In early October, 2020, a federal district judge in this same district (Northern District of Georgia) ruled after several years of litigation that the Dominion software used to monitor this election has substantial issues and it will affect an election. The Plaintiffs were Democrats who filed suit in response to the 2016 election. They sought an order forcing Georgia to use different software. They conducted discovery and hearings over years, including 3 days of expert testimony about how these very voting machines work. The court ultimately denied the request because it was simply too late to change the voting machines since the election at that time was roughly a month away. New cases are supposed to be assigned to judges randomly but I would not be surprised if this case were given to that particular judge since she spent so much time reviewing the litigation and conducting evidentiary hearings. Her findings of fact could be incorporated into this hearing under the legal theory of res judicata.

2. The complaint was clearly rushed. At times it was rough and unpolished. There were numerous grammatical errors. But the gist is quite clear and it is clear that the lawyers drafting the complaint certainly knew what they were doing. They dotted the ‘I’s and crossed the ‘T’s so the complaint is not likely to be kicked on a procedural or jurisdictional claim such as standing (a legal doctrine that says that someone who brings a lawsuit must have skin in the game), but I would expect a more polished product if they had more time. However, the copy I have does not have the blue ECF ‘filed’ stamp, so this may not be the final complaint that gets filed. That becomes really important below.

3. The complaint makes good use of a wide variety of legal sources from both political parties (specifically naming a statement from Democratic Senators Warren, Klobuchar and Wyden from 2019) regarding Dominion software, including evidence from the previous litigation. Essentially the plaintiffs say, among other things, “Look, for the past 15+ years, Republicans, Democrats and a wide variety of international media groups have pointed out the problems with Dominion software so it shouldn’t be a surprise we are here. And the very problems they have pointed out are problems we see in this election.”

4. The complaint relies upon a variety of evidence to support its claim. One is an examination of the history of Dominion software. another is expert testimony regarding the voting patterns seen in this election. Another is eyewitness testimony of ballot switching. Another is evidence of votes being case by ineligible persons. Another is evidence of a pattern of similar conduct in several high population counties. Viewed together, Plaintiffs make a strong case. But it’s one thing to say something and another to prove it.

5. One area where plaintiffs do a good job is in pointing out the number of votes affected by the alleged fraud. One reason this is crucial is that Biden’s certified margin of victory in Georgia was only about 12,000 votes. And the complaint does a good job of laying out substantial procedural and constitutional irregularities with roughly 96,000 votes and further problems with additional votes. The problematic votes far outnumber Biden’s margin of victory, which is hugely significant. Put another way, if Biden wins by 500,000 and they claim that there are problems with 100,000 votes, even if those 100,000 votes are gone, Biden still wins. If the problem votes are gone, Biden’s victory may be gone as well. The complaint does a good job of pointing out not just the alleged problems but the number of votes affected by those problems.

6. What now? The plaintiffs are asking for an evidentiary hearing. That would allow them to present evidence in the form of witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits that would support their claim. Because it is a civil case, they only have to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, they only have to prove that it was more likely than not that there was fraud and that the fraud influenced the election. They do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The court may refuse an evidentiary hearing, in which case Plaintiffs would appeal and argue that they should be given hearing. Given the evidence laid out, I expect that the court will at least order an evidentiary hearing that will be conducted on an expedited scale. (it helps that there’s an evidentiary hearing set in Nevada). After the evidentiary hearing, the court can grant their request, which would be to de-certify the election and force a manual re-count/audit overseen by independent auditors to verify each vote. Or the court could deny it. Realistically this case is likely to be appealed, which is one reason that the District (trial) court is likely to hold an evidentiary hearing. Because an appeal is almost certain no matter who wins the case, the judge’s legal decision in this case is likely not nearly as important as the judge’s factual decisions. The judge’s factual decisions will likely be relied upon by appellate judges even if they disagree with the judge’s legal conclusions. If there is an evidentiary hearing, pay careful attention to the judge’s factual findings, especially as described below.

7. What to look for. There are a few things to watch for if there is a hearing. For one, federal (NOT state, and this is hugely important for federal jurisdiction) law requires that all records related to the election of a President, VP and senators be kept for at least 22 months after an election. If the court sets a hearing, watch for a request for that evidence. If the court orders an evidentiary hearing, I would expect the court would order that evidence provided to the Plaintiffs and to the court. If that evidence is not provided, that is, if the Georgia Division of Elections does not have the data that is required by the federal statutes, there will be hell to pay. I cannot imagine that anybody would be so monumentally stupid as to either erase such information or to not keep such information. However, Plaintiffs specifically allege that the voting machines do not keep copies of original paper ballots and are designed to avoid this audit trail. See ¶98 of the complaint. This is one area where the complaint’s rushed nature is an issue, although the complaint does not appear to be filed because it’s missing the blue ECF numbers showing it has been filed. Maybe the copy I got is just a leaked rough draft. 

In making this allegation, the complaint quotes some findings and includes a footnote that should have the citation for what was quoted. That particular footnote, number 14, is missing. Having worked with Word to include footnotes, it would not surprise me if it were deleted accidentally during formatting. If this is the complaint that gets filed, I expect that given the time constraints Plaintiffs counsel will soon seek to file an amended complaint and include footnote 14. If that footnote is still missing, it looks really bad for Plaintiffs. If that footnote is included and their allegations about the lack of a paper trial in Dominion machines is true, that single factual finding alone is enough to derail any certified election results from states relying upon Dominion machine. I am not joking. The statute that requires election officials to keep records is a criminal statute, meaning that election officials who willfully do not keep such records can go to prison. Whether they will or not is not the issue. The issue is that this will be a crucial matter to look at because if nothing else, Plaintiffs can say, “Here are major voter irregularities and if the defendants had followed the law, this court would have had the evidence to determine whether these irregularities are just an odd statistical coincidence or based on fraud. But defendants deprived the court of the ability to do its job despite their clear legal obligation to do so.” That’s not really where the defendants want to be. 

The plaintiffs will also seek to compare votes cast with voter registration, specifically people that have moved from Georgia and are no longer eligible to vote. Plaintiffs allege that over 20,000 votes were cast by people who had moved out of Georgia and were no longer eligible to vote. Strike those 20,000 votes as illegitimate and who knows what happens to Biden’s lead. These two issues are huge because they are black and white. There can be no reasonable dispute. Either they have the records or they don’t. Either 20,000 votes were cast by non-residents or they weren’t. If Plaintiffs can prove these two points, the court is likely to give them wider latitude about other matters. If they can’t prove these two points, Plaintiffs will find their case is much harder than anticipated.

8. After that, there are other evidentiary issues on which the court may or may not take evidence. Plaintiffs make a big deal about how the ‘water leak’ at election headquarters was fraudulent and resulted in only a few people being along with voting machines for several hours. I anticipate the court will take some evidence on that but it won’t be enough for Plaintiffs to prove that the voting machines were unsecured on election night through the defendants’ fraud. Plaintiffs will have to prove that during that time votes were actually altered in some way, that is, deleted or switched from one candidate to another or added or something and they must prove that the number of altered votes would be within the margin of error for the Biden victory margin. This ties in with the audit trail. Put another way, if Plaintiffs can show that: 1) the water leak was non-existent; 2) that as a result of the ‘water leak,’ the machines were in the hands of just a few people for several hours; 3) that in those hours the voting pattern changed dramatically and unpredictably, then Georgia better have those machines and those machines better have an audit trail or some judges are not going to be happy.

There are similar lawsuits pending in several other states and issues dovetail with this one. A judge in Nevada has ordered an evidentiary hearing on December 3. That hearing focuses upon fraud in mail-in ballots, which is not so much the focus here. The focus here is more on problems with Dominion software, which will be harder to prove, although the lack of an audit trail will be crucial for this issue. Plaintiffs will catch a big break if the judge who did the litigation on Dominion software gets this case because the judge will know the issues with Dominion and have the background to get up to speed quickly. If the judge who handled the Dominion litigation handles this one, she would be able to get an opinion out fairly quickly because she already wrote a 150 page opinion about the problems with Dominion. If she gets an opinion out while litigation about Dominion is pending in other states or appellate courts, look for Plaintiffs/Trump to use the decision to try to influence the other cases involving Dominion, especially if she makes a factual finding that the machines do not have an audit trail and this is by design.

I have no idea about the likelihood of success. Plaintiffs make an excellent argument. That is, what they allege is indeed serious. It’s not a complaint that you read and wonder “What the hell were these lawyers smoking when they filed this?” Maybe Plaintiffs are wrong. Maybe they can’t prove what they allege. But that is different than “what were they smoking?” If they can prove what they allege, the court has the power to grant their request to de-certify the election and audit the votes. But courts are generally loathe to overturn elections. If the Plaintiffs’ evidence (key word is evidence, not allegations) ultimately comes down to really improbable voting patterns, Plaintiffs are not likely to win. Plaintiffs need to be able to say, “Here is how voter fraud occurred and here are the number of fraudulent votes cast/changed/deleted/added because of that fraud.” If they can’t do both, or at least do both in sufficient numbers to cast Biden’s margin of victory into doubt in Georgia, they won’t win. If they can do both, this case will get real interesting real fast. If this court finds that Dominion voting machines do not keep records that allow an audit of votes in a Presidential election despite a clear federal statute to do so, then I truly have no idea where this ends up. In that case, I am truly glad that RBG is not on the court any longer.

On one last note in an already too-long email, it will be irony of ironies if the Dominion software litigation in Georgia turns out to be the key to this whole thing when it was Democrats themselves who started that litigation in response to the 2017 election. 

UPDATE: the shill response to the GA filing is “LOL, spelling errors!”

The one things judges hate, even the most conservatives ones, is when you start making a mockery of the court. Going to court unprepared and will spelling errors is just going to get on the judges bad side.

Oh, the irony…. The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one. 

UPDATE: This subsequent post by the original poster, made prior to the Powell filing, appears to be accurate:

We haven’t heard from the higher ups in hours. I haven’t been told to worry yet, but the shift around here is palpable. The suit is…comprehensive. A lot of it talks about the Dominion software and the pay-to-play implications of having it installed in Georgia, the modifications to the system and the alleged money that changed hands between officials at dominion and state officials in Georgia. There’s a lot of discussion about some executive for Dominion that made a bunch of red flag modifications to the system right before the election that were against protocols or something. Then there is a lot from whistleblowers who testify to taking part in vote switching and ballot adding.

There are 8 references to Dominion CEO Eric Coomer across 4 pages of the filing. There is also an amount of testimony from whistleblowers.

 There is no more doubt that President Trump is going to take the battle to the fraudsters in the aftermath of today’s press conference.

“We will not back down, we won’t be intimidated, President Trump will not be intimidated. You the American people should not be intimidated… this is not a court of law, we will get there, and we have time, and we have constitutional provisions that will step in when we show the corruption and the irredeemably challenged and overturned votes that are absolutely corrupt.”

-Jenna Ellis, Senior Legal Advisor to the Trump Campaign

The Nine Key Points detailed today:

1. Observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened. Giuliani said that many mail-in ballots were opened without observers being able to check that they were properly signed, a key protection against fraud. Those votes, he said, were “null and void,” especially where the envelopes had been discarded, making recounts useless.

2. Allegedly unequal application of the law in Democratic counties. In Pennsylvania, whose state supreme court created new, relaxed voting rules before the election, Giuliani alleged that absentee voters in Democratic counties were allowed to “cure” defects in their ballots, while voters in Republican counties, which obeyed the state law as written, were not.

3. Voters allegedly arrived at the polls to discover other people had voted for them. Giuliani said that many provisional ballots cast in Pittsburgh were submitted by people who showed up to vote in person, only to be told that they had voted already. He alleged that Democrats had filled out absentee ballots for other people, hoping they would not show up.

4. Election officials were allegedly told not to look for defects in ballots, and to backdate ballots. Giuliani cited an affidavit from an official who swore she was told not to exclude absentee ballots for defects, and to backdate ballots so they would not appear to have been received after Election Day, to avoid a Supreme Court order to sequester those ballots.

5. Ballots casting votes for Joe Biden and no other candidates were allegedly run several times through machines. Giuliani said that there were 60 witnesses in Michigan who would attest to ballots being “produced” quickly and counted twice or thrice. He said that a minimum of 60,000 ballots, and a maximum of 100,000 ballots, were allegedly affected.

6. Absentee ballots were accepted in Wisconsin without being applied for first. Giuliani noted that Wisconsin state law was stricter regarding absentee ballots than most other states are, yet alleged that 60,000 absentee ballots were counted in the Milwaukee area, and 40,000 in the Madison area, without having been applied for properly by the voters who cast them.

7. There were allegedly “overvotes,” with some precincts allegedly recording more voters than residents, among other problems. Giuliani said there was an unusually large number of overvotes in precincts in Michigan and in Wisconsin, which he alleged was the reason that Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers had refused to certify the results there this week. He also alleged that there were some out-of-state voters in Georgia, and people who had cast votes twice there.

8. Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros. Sidney Powell argued that U.S. votes were being counted overseas, and that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were controlled by foreign interests, manipulating algorithms to change the results. Powell noted specifically that Smartmatic’s owners included two Venezuelan nationals, whom she alleged had ties to the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. The legal team alleged that there were statistical anomalies, such as huge batches of votes for Biden, that could not be explained except as manipulation — which, they alleged, happened in the wee hours of the morning as vote-counting had stalled. (The companies have disputed these allegations vigorously.)

9. The Constitution provides a process for electing a president if the vote is corrupted. Jenna Ellis argued that the media, had usurped the power to declare the winner of the election. She made the point, citing Federalist No. 68, that the constitutional process of selecting a president had procedural safeguards against corruption and foreign influence. Giuliani said that the campaign believed that enough votes were flawed — more than double the margins between Biden and Trump in key states — that the president had a path to victory.

As Giuliani himself said, anyone who says there is “no evidence” of mass voter fraud is lying. 

UPDATE: We will not back down, but Tucker Carlson appears to have cucked.

Tucker Carlson says Trump campaign unwilling to provide evidence to back their claims.

Forget the legal definitions of evidence. These people are not even speaking English correctly. 

 Biden aides are threatening to hold their breath or something if the Trump campaign, the GSA, the State election certifiers, and the State electors don’t give into the media’s demoralization campaign:

Joe Biden’s aides on Sunday demanded that their boss receive intelligence briefings as soon as this week. With President Donald Trump refusing to concede, the Democrat remains frozen out of the White House.

Biden’s transition team complained last week that General Services Administration chief Emily Murphy has not yet broken ranks with Trump and is refusing to sign off on Biden as the winner of this month’s presidential election. Until Murphy ascertains Biden’s apparent victory, the former vice president will not receive intelligence and security briefings.

Biden not going to get them this week. Or next week. Or, for that matter, next year. Because Biden didn’t win.

 Karl the Martian asks about the latest twist in the Patreon CA court cast:

complex litigation hype train – stronger or weaker than our god emperor’s chances of being president?

It’s not so much weaker as nonexistent. What he’s referring to here is yesterday’s court-approved request for complex litigation made by Patreon back in May. This was a cheap legal stunt intended to increase filing fees for the Bears, which also provided the Bears with a third breach of contract claim in their arbitrations. Because the case isn’t actually complex and complex status wouldn’t serve to do anything it hasn’t already accomplished, Patreon agreed to an order that was filed to designate the case as non-complex more than a month ago, as the court records show.

2020-10-07     FEE PAID ON: STIPULATION & ORDER TO DESIGNATE CASE AS NON-COMPLEX (TRANSACTION ID # 100113383)

As far as I have heard, no one on either side understands how this happened or what’s going on yet. My guess is that this was just an administrative error in which someone failed to notice the original request had already been revoked.