the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[Bookman 4639]

24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

How does a man who has a relationship of mutual loathing with dogs become president in the first place?

There are a lot of simple-minded people in this country.

[TwiceHorn 31457]

4 hours ago, Bookman said:

But what if you don't sue for damages?

I guess that's the 64k question.  If you only seek a ridiculous remedy like cornholing D's wife, or invalidating the statewide vote, maybe you can get poured out with prejudice.  Like those cases where failure to plead "special damages" can be fatal to your cause of action.

But it seems like you ought to get the opportunity to amend first.  And I think that's the general purpose of "and any other relief to which plaintiff shows itself to be entitled."

[TwiceHorn 31457]

29 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

How does a man who has a relationship of mutual loathing with dogs become president in the first place?

I saw an article on my google feed mentioning White House pets and how Biden will be returning dogs and and a cat to the White House.

[Bookman 4639]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess that's the 64k question.  If you only seek a ridiculous remedy like cornholing D's wife, or invalidating the statewide vote, maybe you can get poured out with prejudice.  Like those cases where failure to plead "special damages" can be fatal to your cause of action.

But it seems like you ought to get the opportunity to amend first.  And I think that's the general purpose of "and any other relief to which plaintiff shows itself to be entitled."

I'm only superficially keeping up so this may be a dumb question. But if they have a dec action asking to declare the statute unconstitutional, wouldn't they need to show some type of remedy for the court to have jurisdiction? And if their only proper remedy is barred by laches, wouldn't a dismissal with prejudice be proper?

Edited November 29, 2020 by Bookman

[TwiceHorn 31457]

9 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I'm only superficially keeping up so this may be a dumb question. But if they have a dec action asking to declare the statute unconstitutional, wouldn't they need to show some type of remedy for the court to have jurisdiction? And if their only requested remedy is barred by laches, wouldn't a dismissal with prejudice be proper under state law?

Well, I think a declaration that a statute is unconstitutional is a remedy unto itself, which idea is bolstered by the title of 28 USC 2201 "Creation of a Remedy."  Pennsylvania law may be different.  I do vaguely seem to recall either some law or criticism of the federal DJ Act that it created an opportunity for "advisory opinions" if not coupled with some other requested relief.  But I think that's why the federal cases require the existence of a case or controversy.

And, yeah, I agree that seeking a dumbass remedy is hazardous to your case, but it seems that one should be given the opportunity to amend to seek a reasonable and lawful remedy  before getting poured out.

And, the parts analogous to the "prayer for relief" that we tend to use in that PA complaint do not, other than the declaration of unconstitutionality and attorneys fees, seek any other remedy except those barred by laches. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020-11-21-Kelly-v.-Commonwealth-Complaint-620MD20-PFR.pdf

Edited November 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

50 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

How does a man who has a relationship of mutual loathing with dogs become president in the first place?

 

26 minutes ago, Bookman said:

There are a lot of simple-minded people in this country.

It does pander to his 'I'm a victim' persona doesn't it? People with empathy treat dogs and other animals with compassion but Trump has none of that so perhaps he sees a dog as an object: to be kicked, to be chained up, to be treated as serving a 'master'. It certainly fits. I guess those simple-minded people cannot see that or worse--they lack that empathy as well.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

@TwiceHorn

There are not one, but two, lawyer threads on the Ag site if you care to view. I was skimming them during the Bama game that was boring (maybe we should get a second tv?) and there was even a little credential smack down:

 

And then continued for six pages ending with something to do with fried chicken patents and I almost fell over because it reminded me of your trademark discussion the other day.

 

Here are the links, the first link is the one that I clipped those quotes above, the second link is a much shorter one and calls some of lawyers that posted in the first link commies.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160390/1

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160542

[Guest Lobo]

My Civil Procedure professor always said you talk PA state election law with an Aggie long enough, you’ll end up discussing fried chicken intellectual property.  I never believed him until now. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26451]

Wait- actual bird law?

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Well, I think a declaration that a statute is unconstitutional is a remedy unto itself, which idea is bolstered by the title of 28 USC 2201 "Creation of a Remedy."  Pennsylvania law may be different.  I do vaguely seem to recall either some law or criticism of the federal DJ Act that it created an opportunity for "advisory opinions" if not coupled with some other requested relief.  But I think that's why the federal cases require the existence of a case or controversy.
And, yeah, I agree that seeking a dumbass remedy is hazardous to your case, but it seems that one should be given the opportunity to amend to seek a reasonable and lawful remedy  before getting poured out.
And, the parts analogous to the "prayer for relief" that we tend to use in that PA complaint do not, other than the declaration of unconstitutionality and attorneys fees, seek any other remedy except those barred by laches. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020-11-21-Kelly-v.-Commonwealth-Complaint-620MD20-PFR.pdf

one can claim prospective injunctive relief as a remedy to meet the requirements of a valid cause of action, but that does them no good.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait- actual bird law?

Chicken ranch law?

[Bookman 4639]

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I think a declaration that a statute is unconstitutional is a remedy unto itself, which idea is bolstered by the title of 28 USC 2201 "Creation of a Remedy." 

I mean without a proper remedy, I'm not sure how there could be a sufficient controversy to give the court jurisdiction. Something like this:

THE COURT: Why are you here?

RUDY: We want the Court to declare the statute unconstitutional and to disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvania voters.

THE COURT: Among other things, if you thought it was unconstitutional you shouldn't have waited until after we had the election. That remedy is barred by laches. Why else should the Court do it?

RUDY: Because it's unconstitutional Your Honor.

THE COURT: How do you have standing to bring that claim?

RUDY: Because Trump lost.

THE COURT: And if we rule that it's unconstitutional but don't throw out those votes Trump will win? What remedy are you seeking?

RUDY: I'm trying to overturn the election. It didn't work out the way we wanted it to.

THE COURT: Case dismissed with prejudice.

 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

37 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

one can claim prospective injunctive relief as a remedy to meet the requirements of a valid cause of action, but that does them no good.

Definitely.

The PA Supreme Court got it right in killing any meaningful remedy for Trumpco.  I just think they technically threw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's of no moment, though, because there's no court of review and SCOTUS isn't going to take this to fix their error.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Js1 85321]

9 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

How far are we from the Trump legal team, when asked to provide evidence of their claims in court by a judge, telling the judge to do his/her own research? A week?  Less? 

I educated myself and now I see the truth! 

[Ted Lange 16085]

51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait- actual bird law?

[Sawbonz 27551]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

  I just think they technically threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I’m confused here. Are you saying the court should give them a chance to ask for a judgment with no remedy or a chance to ask for a different remedy. If it’s the first why would the judgement matter and if the second what other remedy would be a reasonable request?

[4th&Five 41535]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I saw an article on my google feed mentioning White House pets and how Biden will be returning dogs and and a cat to the White House.

[Woland 733]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

@TwiceHorn

There are not one, but two, lawyer threads on the Ag site if you care to view. I was skimming them during the Bama game that was boring (maybe we should get a second tv?) and there was even a little credential smack down:

 

And then continued for six pages ending with something to do with fried chicken patents and I almost fell over because it reminded me of your trademark discussion the other day.

 

Here are the links, the first link is the one that I clipped those quotes above, the second link is a much shorter one and calls some of lawyers that posted in the first link commies.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160390/1

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160542

INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE!

[TwiceHorn 31457]

15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m confused here. Are you saying the court should give them a chance to ask for a judgment with no remedy or a chance to ask for a different remedy. If it’s the first why would the judgement matter and if the second what other remedy would be a reasonable request?

I'm not saying it matters in any practical sense, which I have tried to make clear numerous times.

From a purely legal procedural standpoint, the PA Supreme Court should have remanded to the trial court to let the plaintiffs amend to stick to a rational remedy, which may be simply Act 77 violates the PA Constitution and can't be used in another election until the Constitution is amended.

The plaintiffs may/probably have no interest in pursuing such a useless remedy, for their current purposes, so maybe they dismiss it voluntarily.  So it ends up in the same place, but I think they should have been given that opportunity.

While that complaint deserved to be shot into the sun and dismissed with prejudice, never to be seen again, I think the law actually requires a remand to the trial court.  Deserve's got nothin to do with it. There may be some nuance of PA law I'm not taking into account, but the PA Supreme Court didn't cite to it.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

He’s essentially saying a timely lawsuit may arise later and this issue should rightfully be litigated to clear up any ambiguity.

[TwiceHorn 31457]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

He’s essentially saying a timely lawsuit may arise later and this issue should rightfully be litigated to clear up any ambiguity.

Pretty much.  Although I'm not saying it really should be litigated, it just seems the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to amend and pursue the constitutional question for prospective (future) relief only.

It's a purely academic question at this point.  Notable only because I see a tendency of the PA Supreme Court in these election decisions to focus on the outcome a little too blindly, while ignoring procedure and maybe the most solid legal reasoning.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait- actual bird law?

ex Post Facto, your Honor.  De minimis..............LEX AVEM!!!!

[RDCanecutter 26428]

14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t know if you lawdogs throw that word around a lot, but I’ve been watching the rise of the nazis on PBS and the Beer Hall Putsch was Hitler’s first attempt at a coup. Using that language here does not seem coincidental 

It's a comparison that is highly unfair to Hitler. We can abhor Hitler for all his Hitleresque actions, but at the same time, he had personal courage, served in a real army during a war, had artistic talent plus speaking ability beyond a 3rd-grade level, and stood up to Russia.

[Beau Vine 54220]

Can we just give Trump a participation trophy and call it done?

[Guest Lobo]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Can we just give Trump a participation trophy and call it done?

We already have.  In fact, we gave him two.  The "TRUMP PENCE 2020" flag and the Confederate Flag.  They participated in an election, and lost.  Their followers participated in a Civil War and lost.  

The nation needs second-rate, also-rans...now more than ever.  America is about to embark upon a Virtual Reconstruction.  We hope you'll join us in lieu of occupation. 

[Pato del Muerto 52492]

22 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

He’s essentially saying a timely lawsuit may arise later and this issue should rightfully be litigated to clear up any ambiguity.

And if they don’t bring another suit seeking to change the law before the next election, isn’t that tacit evidence that, since they voted for the change in the first place, the only thing they really wanted was to reverse the presidential election result in their state?

[Js1 85321]

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

The nation needs second-rate, also-rans...now more than ever.  

We call those aggys 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And if they don’t bring another suit seeking to change the law before the next election, isn’t that tacit evidence that, since they voted for the change in the first place, the only thing they really wanted was to reverse the presidential election result in their state?

Well, because the thing was dismissed with prejudice, that particular set of plaintiffs cannot bring that case, even with a reasonable remedy request, again (which is the fundamental problem).

Another plaintiff or plaintiffs should be able to successfully invalidate as unconstitutional Act 77 on a prospective basis.

It has little to do with the fact that the plaintiffs in Kelly voted for Act 77 and everything to do with the fact that as soon as it became evident that the PA SOS was going to follow Act 77 in the 2020 elections, before the constitutional amendment was duly ratified, they should have filed suit asking that it not be applied to the 2020 elections.  By waiting until after it had been used in the primary and general elections, they hosed themselves.

This whole thing really is kind of a circus of dumbassery.  The PA lege evidently decided they wanted to create excuse-free mail in voting for the 2020 election.  They legislated accordingly, apparently intending it to be employed in the 2020 elections.  Then someone realized there was a problem with that pesky old PA Constitution, so they decided to amend that, too, but with the problem that it couldn't be amended in time for the 2020 elections.

And despite all this, the PA SOS went ahead and used Act 77 in the 2020 election.

I guess they just crossed their fingers and hoped no one would challenge it, but it seems like they were just whistling past the graveyard.

For a populous, original colony state that has been doing the law thing for a while and has some good schools in it, this is surprisingly incompetent.  This is something you'd expect out of North Dakota, or Nevada, or maybe California.

Edited November 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Jive Turkey 12596]

I must have missed that part of Article III. POTUS always has standing. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

6 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

I must have missed that part of Article III. POTUS always has standing. 

 

He's such a fucking idiot and he has no idea how big an idiot he actually is.

I think even Shrub was more conscious of when he was overmatched by a subject.

[AnTiM 1666]

Just saw an article stating that in a lot of cities where Trump held late and well attended rallies, he got a smaller share of votes than in 2016.  Apparently a lot of people who attended were not impressed.  I am starting to hope that there may still be a chance for this country to come to its damn senses.

[TwiceHorn 31457]

14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t know if you lawdogs throw that word around a lot, but I’ve been watching the rise of the nazis on PBS and the Beer Hall Putsch was Hitler’s first attempt at a coup. Using that language here does not seem coincidental 

Believe it or not, most American lawdogs have no reason to refer to "coups" or "putsches" or "attempts to overthrow" or even "treason" or "sedition" in their legal lives and careers. That don't go round here, generally speaking.

Such is the Trump administration, though.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20397]

John Fetterman is becoming my hero.

 

[Js1 85321]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's such a fucking idiot and he has no idea how big an idiot he actually is.

I think even Shrub was more conscious of when he was overmatched by a subject.

W actually had smart people around him to tell him not to say something. Trump just has yes men and lackeys fighting to see who gets to kiss his fat orange ass.

“You’re right sir, completely. Yes, you’re right, you should go on TV and say that. It’s genius. We can’t lose!”

[Pato del Muerto 52492]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

W actually had smart people around him to tell him not to say something. Trump just has yes men and lackeys fighting to see who gets to kiss his fat orange ass.

“You’re right sir, completely. Yes, you’re right, you should go on TV and say that. It’s genius. We can’t lose!”

Trump and W are opposites. W seemed to always listen to those around him-rove, Cheney, etc.- to where we felt like it was their administration. Trump never listens to his people and if they don’t agree with him they get fired. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait- actual bird law?

[Sawbonz 27551]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

We already have.  In fact, we gave him two.  The "TRUMP PENCE 2020" flag and the Confederate Flag.  They participated in an election, and lost.  Their followers participated in a Civil War and lost.  

The nation needs second-rate, also-rans...now more than ever.  America is about to embark upon a Virtual Reconstruction.  We hope you'll join us in lieu of occupation. 

Don’t forget the Bay of Pigs Award

['stache 21813]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

ex Post Facto, your Honor.  De minimis..............LEX AVEM!!!!

E Pluribus Anus. I resist my case you’re highness.

[Ted Lange 16085]

True Grift 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52492]

Audit every vote. For what?  And why should it take some incredible computing power to do it?

[TexasEd 8066]

2 hours ago, AnTiM said:

Just saw an article stating that in a lot of cities where Trump held late and well attended rallies, he got a smaller share of votes than in 2016.  Apparently a lot of people who attended were not impressed.  I am starting to hope that there may still be a chance for this country to come to its damn senses.

Ratio is not the correct measurement here, raw votes is.

More people hate trump than love him.

Trump lost the popular vote by fewer total votes in 2016 than 2020

More people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016.

 

All of the above are true.

[4th_and_18 687]

Audit every vote. For what?  And why should it take some incredible computing power to do it?

As with everything else involved in this overturn effort it is not about the votes.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not saying it matters in any practical sense, which I have tried to make clear numerous times.

From a purely legal procedural standpoint, the PA Supreme Court should have remanded to the trial court to let the plaintiffs amend to stick to a rational remedy, which may be simply Act 77 violates the PA Constitution and can't be used in another election until the Constitution is amended.

The plaintiffs may/probably have no interest in pursuing such a useless remedy, for their current purposes, so maybe they dismiss it voluntarily.  So it ends up in the same place, but I think they should have been given that opportunity.

While that complaint deserved to be shot into the sun and dismissed with prejudice, never to be seen again, I think the law actually requires a remand to the trial court.  Deserve's got nothin to do with it. There may be some nuance of PA law I'm not taking into account, but the PA Supreme Court didn't cite to it.

I don't agree with this.

This isn't like the breach-of-contract suit seeking wife-cornholing.  A breach-of-contract suit can always seek general damages without pleading them.  

This is different.  It's a declaratory-judgment suit that also requests permanent injunction.  If you don't plead a declaratory judgment that the court can grant, the court can't go in and fashion some sort of declaration that it can grant.  It just finds against you.  Same with injunction.  In both cases, you have to plead the declaratory judgment and the injunction you want with specificity.

Specifically, as it relates to this case, the court can't grant a declaration as to the constitutionality and prospective applicability of Act 77 because the Trump campaign didn't ask for that declaration.  And if it had asked for that declaration, it probably wouldn't have had standing to seek the prospective injunction against applying Act 77.  So for that reason, it's dismissed with prejudice.

Now--some other group of plaintiffs who actually would have standing can come along and seek permanent injunction against the prospective application of Act 77.  That would be a completely different suit.  And it's not barred by the dismissal of this suit with prejudice.

[Gatorubet 30234]

“Standing in 3 inch lifts is still STANDING!!!”

[Gatorubet 30234]

Now--some other group of plaintiffs who actually would have standing can come along and seek permanent injunction against the prospective application of Act 77.  That would be a completely different suit.  And it's not barred by the dismissal of this suit with prejudice.

I think everyone agrees with the above. I just can’t remember if a stand alone request to declare the Act unconstitutional was stuck somewhere with the craptastic declaratory relief request of invalidating the election and barring certification - after the fact of letting the election proceed with plaintiffs’ blessing before they lost.

[Js1 85321]

Conservatives turning on FedSoc judges. Bc they’re super deep state anti-Trump

 

[mchookem 16330]

FedSoc judges 'denied him three times'...i assumed they were making a comparison with Peter denying Jesus.

and that would not have shocked me at all.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20397]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

“Standing in 3 inch lifts is still STANDING!!!”

You'd stand that way, too, if you had to offset a filled diaper. 

[TwiceHorn 31457]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't agree with this.

This isn't like the breach-of-contract suit seeking wife-cornholing.  A breach-of-contract suit can always seek general damages without pleading them.  

This is different.  It's a declaratory-judgment suit that also requests permanent injunction.  If you don't plead a declaratory judgment that the court can grant, the court can't go in and fashion some sort of declaration that it can grant.  It just finds against you.  Same with injunction.  In both cases, you have to plead the declaratory judgment and the injunction you want with specificity.

Specifically, as it relates to this case, the court can't grant a declaration as to the constitutionality and prospective applicability of Act 77 because the Trump campaign didn't ask for that declaration.  And if it had asked for that declaration, it probably wouldn't have had standing to seek the prospective injunction against applying Act 77.  So for that reason, it's dismissed with prejudice.

Now--some other group of plaintiffs who actually would have standing can come along and seek permanent injunction against the prospective application of Act 77.  That would be a completely different suit.  And it's not barred by the dismissal of this suit with prejudice.

That is a fair point regarding the standing of plaintiffs.  But the court didn't discuss their standing.  It tossed the entire case because most of, if not all of the remedies pled were barred by laches, without ever discussing the merits of the cause of action or the standing of the plaintiffs to assert it.

And, under the Federal Rules, anyway, I believe you can plead for a declaration of rights, only, with or without accompanying injunctive relief, although pleading for other stuff is typical.  There may be some nuance of PA procedure that renders things very different, but again the PA Supreme Court didn't so state.

I'm just slightly miffed at the reasoning of the PA Supreme Court.  It's a nice victory for everyone, but not quite satisfying because they blew right past some kinda important issues, generally speaking, that probably make no difference here.

You know you'd be fucking pissed if the PA Supreme Court gave you that decision in a different context, if you had been stupid enough to plead extreme remedies, only, which you wouldn't have been.

I mean what the PA Supreme Court did is effectively a 12(b)(6) dismissal, which typically requires an opportunity to amend before dismissal.  And, if you are going to deny leave to amend, there have to be findings made about why it would be futile or that the plaintiff has already tried and failed.  

Edited November 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31457]

7 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

@TwiceHorn

There are not one, but two, lawyer threads on the Ag site if you care to view. I was skimming them during the Bama game that was boring (maybe we should get a second tv?) and there was even a little credential smack down:

 

And then continued for six pages ending with something to do with fried chicken patents and I almost fell over because it reminded me of your trademark discussion the other day.

 

Here are the links, the first link is the one that I clipped those quotes above, the second link is a much shorter one and calls some of lawyers that posted in the first link commies.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160390/1

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3160542

There are plenty of perfectly fine aggies with law degrees, many of them from UT.

It just appears that none of them post on texags.  Lord have mercy.