Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Finally, Someone With The Courage Of Their Convictions

It's complete moonbeams, but still:

Despite the appearance of “Trump” in the names of two of the Plaintiff entities, this is not a 2020 presidential election fraud lawsuit.1 This lawsuit does not seek to change the declared winner of any election that took place in the past year, including the 2020 Presidential Race and the 2021 Georgia Senate Runoff. In fact, this lawsuit will most certainly not inure to the benefit of any American politician, regardless of party affiliation.
The court has to ask:  "So what relief are you seeking?"  Oh, and that "1" in the quote is a footnote, which again clarifies the situation:

1 This is not a Sidney Powell lawsuit. This is not a Rudy Giuliani lawsuit. This is not a Lin Wood lawsuit. This is not a Team Trump lawsuit. This is not a Republican lawsuit. This is not a Democrat lawsuit.

"Democrat" as a proper noun identifying the Democratic Party is, as always, a tell. 

And footnote number two, attached to the end of that final sentence in the quote above:

2 Except to the extent that it may benefit such persons in their role as an ordinary citizen of these United States.

Yeah, I don't know what they're suing for, either.

Now, about the courage of their convictions:

The evidence will show that this egregious deprivation of the most basic right guaranteed to every American since the founding of the Republic—the right to cast a legal vote in a federal election, which amounts to the right to a government by consent of the governed was not, in the case of many Defendants, the result of mere negligence or ignorance. The evidence that will come forth in the course of this lawsuit will establish an intentional concert of conduct between federal, state, and local government officials and various partisan enterprises that should be considered a boot to the throat of every American who believes that the Constitution of the United States guarantees every citizen the right to a government elected by the People.

4. The truth of the allegations set forth herein compels the shocking conclusion that every member of currently-seated 117th U.S. Congress and the President-Elect, who is scheduled to be sworn in this coming Wednesday, January 20th, were not legitimately elected because the People of the United States were given ballots that were patently illegal under federal law, namely HAVA. Therefore, the entire 117th Congress is illegitimate and all actions taken since January 3, 2021, including the counting of the Electoral College votes and confirmation of Joseph Biden as President-Elect and the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump are null and void.

That's always been the logical conclusion of the election fraud argument:  it either tainted all the ballots, or it didn't taint any of them.  Now, what do they do with such a conclusion?

5. Never before in the history of the United States of America (the “Republic”) has the entire federal election been conducted in clear and unequivocal violation of duly-enacted federal election law. With the sitting President’s term set to expire this Wednesday, January 20th, this situation is a Constitutional Crisis of cataclysmic proportion unlike any seen since the Southern States seceded from the Republic in 1861.  The only conceivable remedy is for this Honorable Court to enter an injunction to restrain all further action and to enjoin the enforcement and effect of all previous actions of the 117th Congress until trial upon the merits, and, upon a verdict for the Plaintiffs,  for the Court to order the 50 states to conduct a new federal election that conforms to the minimum standards of HAVA.

Yeah, those opening sentences?  We changed our minds.

And it's not a "Trump lawsuit," but the inauguration:

cannot lawfully go forward on Wednesday.  Thankfully, there is still time for the only lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official, President Donald Trump to take all reasonable and necessary action consistent with the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section 1 and all the original intents and purposes of the Constitution of the United States to preserve the lawful and orderly continuity of government. 

Moonbeams, as I said.  But they saved the best legal argument for last:

Accordingly, this Court should rest assured that the relief requested in this lawsuit will not result in the destruction of democracy, as the dishonest national news media, who has been complicit in this crisis and as will be shown in the course of this lawsuit, will attempt to claim. No, it is actually the opposite. The purpose of this lawsuit is merely to reinforce the laws and Constitution of the Republic to SAVE AND RESTORE [sic] the democratic republican process on which the People have depended to protect their individual rights since the dawn of our Republic.

That last line is especially cute, as the plaintiffs here purport to be (this is finally revealed, not in the first paragraphs where it should be, but in Part III of the Complaint) a "group of Black and Latino voters deprived of their right to legally cast a vote."  A right both classes of persons were deprived of (with one class not even being recognized as "persons") since the dawn of our Republic until at least the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Oh, and this footnote comes in part III, where parties are named or identified:

Plaintiffs with initials are so named due to their reasonable fear of their personal safety if their identity is made public as a result of this lawsuit.

So, not so much courage, as just convictions.  Four individual plaintiffs are identified only by initials.

The defendants are:  Pete Session [sic],  Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mark Zuckerberg (I am NOT making this up!), Chuck Schumer, Brad Raffensperger, "all current so-called members of the 117th Congress of the United States", and, for good measure, "all the state governors and secretaries of state listed in Exhibit 1 attached hereto." No mention of North Koreans, the Chinese government, servers in Germany, or the ghost of Hugo Chavez.  Unfortunately.

Every state of the Union is then listed separately with its offenses against federal law ("HAVA"), most of which have to do with absentee ballots.  Of course.  Because Trump "won" until all the votes were counted, and everybody knows the votes must be counted before midnight on Election day or they turn into pumpkins, and pumpkins are not votes!  Pumpkins can't even vote!  Wake up, sheeple!  You might think these changes were effected by executive order or by court order, which is what had Josh Hawley so upset.  Nope; changes made the legislatures are illegal, too.

Wait, I take it back.  In the infamous words of "Greater Tuna":  "Texas not included!"  I don't know why, since we had numerous lawsuits down here about changing practices to allow voters to vote in the time of Covid, but the list is alphabetical, and goes from Tennessee to Utah.

I did go looking for the legal arguments as to how and why the Court would have the sweeping powers to grant the relief sought, and I found this:

If the Defendants and the illegitimate Congress their actions installed are able to continue govern the Republic, it will cease to be a republic. It may become a true RINO “republic in name only” in the sense that the “People’s Republic of China” contains the word “Republic,” although it is common public knowledge that the China does not in any way belong to its people. It belongs to a tyrannical, authoritarian, communist police state that engages in atrocities against humanity, including the active persecution of proponents of free speech, democracy, Christians, and anyone else who poses a view that does not demonstrate absolute and unquestioning loyalty to the state and whatever ideologies it chooses to cram down the throats of its citizens. The risk of the United State government descending into such an oppressive police state is tangible and imminent if the government ceases to be accountable to the People, as occurred in the illegal 2020 Federal Election. This risk is evidence from even a cursory review of the history of government power grabs.

I find the mention of "Christians" there especially hilarious, since Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas is putting up billboards claiming he will explain how "Christians" should react to President Biden.  Apparently "Christians" for Dr. Jeffress doesn't include Roman Catholics; which is proof the past is never dead, and is never even past.  I don't think Jeffress was even alive when Kennedy was President; but the world before Kennedy was elected is still alive today.

I got bored again, after that.  This bit is good, however:

Except it neglects the final footnote, appended to the signature space of co-counsel:

Contact info [sic] omitted for privacy and security purposes.

These people are clowns.
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. rick allen12:25 PM

    Odd that the pleading wasn't rejected by the clerk for lacking the required contact information.

    You sure gotta lotta lawyers in Texas! My New Mexico bar number only has four digits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rmj2:20 PM

      Yeah, I did wonder about that. Been too long since I filed a pleading in any court. I think all the details have changed (I know in Texas we used to file a General Denial answer in state court. Now I understand you have to present any affirmative defenses in the Original Answer. My memory is such filings were as rare as hen's teeth.)

      And for some reason I still remember my Bar Number (I still have my card somewhere). It's stuck in my memory like a sticker burr. Can't remember for sure what I did last Xmas, but I can't forget my Bar number (and I haven't used it in almost 30 years).

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)