For All The 🤡🤡🤡🤡

DOJ lawyers have been replaced by people who watched courtroom dramas:

Plaintiffs are objecting to the exhibits (call logs, I think) that the feds are trying to get admitted into evidence.

I don't know what the DOJ is doing with their lawyers that none of them know how to lay a proper foundation. It's Trial Advocacy 101.

Plaintiffs just keep objecting to "lack of personal knowledge," and the defense keeps trying again. 😂

Judge Immergut: This witness claims he has no knowledge of how these forms are created.

(defense splutters and tries to make an argument)

Judge Immergut: But he says he's never seen a form like this before.

Defense has no idea how to get this exhibit in. Immergut is trying to help them by suggesting they try "public records."

Marshall for OR: We still have no idea where this doc came from or how it was created. Here, we don't have anyone who can authenticate how this record was made. It doesn't fit into any hearsay exceptions.

Judge Immergut disallows the exhbits and I'm crying with second-hand embarrassment.

To be fair, this is the “boring” part of trials that you never see in courtroom dramas. I still remember a CLE I attended well over 30 years ago. The presenter woke us up after lunch with a clip of Andy Griffith playing a lawyer, stalking around the courtroom waving a sheaf of papers shouting “I’VE GOT EVIDENCE!” The room cracked up, laughing. That’s not even vaguely how it works; except the DOJ in Oregon thinks it does.

Jane Reilly is moving exhibits about potential violations of Posse Comitatus into evidence.

Defense "strongly" objects, saying this is about a different case.

Judge Immergut reminds defense that anything stipulated to will be considered. "If you object, why did you stipulate to it?"

Defense is now blaming the plaintiffs for "switching of exhibits and moving exhibits around."

Judge Immergut: "The whole point of a stipulation is that it's already in evidence. I don't have an independent obligation to exclude something you stipulated to."

There are over 1000 pages of exhibits submitted to Judge Immergut. We're moving more stipulated exhibits into evidence.

Jean Lin for defense wants to be heard about a misstatement that was made earlier. This is about the documents Reilly just moved into evidence. Says they never agreed to it.

Lin is arguing that the defense strongly objected to the "training materials" Reilly is relying on for her Posse Comitatus argument.

Reilly: I didn't represent it was stipulated to. There was a document circulated and there's an "X" in the stipulated box. I assumed defense reviewed it.

And the last redoubt is the Trump defense: “I’m not incompetent! They cheated!”

Edelman is now claiming Plaintiffs put a checkmark in the "stipulated" box in bad faith.

Judge Immergut shut that down - says she's not finding anyone acted in bad faith.

I’ll make a medical analogy since we all seem to understand medicine better than law and government. This would be like hearing the surgeon saying “Which one is the spleen, again?,” as you succumb to the anesthesia. 

But you’re in the OR for foot surgery.