Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 So, sending a letter to a judge doesn't commence an action, start any proceedings, trigger any deadlines, or anything like that.  It's just a letter.

Like the awkward one that I wrote to Markie Post back in 1986.  Nothing ever came of that, either.  Dammit.

d658d70f7ff62845934ac5be952c6b7b.jpg

Wait, she didn't get restraining orders taken out against everybody who wrote her "awkward letters"???

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34752

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m going to need a real lawyer to weigh in on the motion to dismiss comment. They have to assume the allegations are true?

basic motion to dismiss at the early stage of trial is, assuming everything plead is true, have they written something that a court can grant a judgment on.  it's a pretty low bar. 

say i sued kate upton for negligence.  i'd need to plead all the elements of negligence, namely, that she owed me a duty of care, that she breached that duty, and that i suffered damages due to her breach.  i could plead that i tripped on a rock after staring at kate upton's tits while walking by on the sidewalk and broke my leg.  but kate upton doesn't owe any duty to me to keep me from gawking at her glorious titties.  so i'd get dismissed out of federal court for failure to state a claim. 

so, if rudy didn't state a claim (and, at this point, safe to assume he didn't), despite the truthfulness of what he's written (and he probably doesn't pass that bar either), he's going to get dismissed. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106900

Posted
Posted
Just now, Neonmoon said:

I’m going to need a real lawyer to weigh in on the motion to dismiss comment. They have to assume the allegations are true?

Generally speaking, yes.  But there are numerous other reasons to dismiss.  For example, even if true, the allegations may fail to state a claim.  If my claim against the state of Georgia is that a dinosaur shit in my cheerios, maybe that's true....but it fails to state a claim against the State of Georgia.  Or, I may state some super-true facts...but I don't have standing to to bring a claim on those facts -- "I'm suing because a dinosaur shit in neonmoon's cheerios," I don't have standing to make that claim.  Or plenty of other defects.  Maybe you state true facts, but you ask for a remedy that the court doesn't have the legal power to grant - "I demand that the court enjoin all dinosaurs from shitting."  Being that the court knows no dinosaurs exist, and further, even if they did, they are not beholden to a court, case dismissed because I can't grant you any relief.  

I'd say that Rudy knows this, and is just slinging inflammatory bullshit.  But honestly.....I also think he may be dumber than a box of rocks.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34752

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I think that we can all agree that Jenna Ellis is only slightly better at being a lawyer than I am, and I never went to law school. 

Anyway:

 

they can certainly afford it:

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have raised $207.5 million since Election Day, according to a statement on Thursday, gathering donations to pay for challenges to Democrat Joe Biden’s win in the Nov. 3 poll.

https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN28E012

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18324

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m going to need a real lawyer to weigh in on the motion to dismiss comment. They have to assume the allegations are true?

 

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Generally speaking, yes.  But there are numerous other reasons to dismiss.  For example, even if true, the allegations may fail to state a claim.  If my claim against the state of Georgia is that a dinosaur shit in my cheerios, maybe that's true....but it fails to state a claim against the State of Georgia.  Or, I may state some super-true facts...but I don't have standing to to bring a claim on those facts -- "I'm suing because a dinosaur shit in neonmoon's cheerios," I don't have standing to make that claim.  Or plenty of other defects.  Maybe you state true facts, but you ask for a remedy that the court doesn't have the legal power to grant - "I demand that the court enjoin all dinosaurs from shitting."  Being that the court knows no dinosaurs exist, and further, even if they did, they are not beholden to a court, case dismissed because I can't grant you any relief.  

I'd say that Rudy knows this, and is just slinging inflammatory bullshit.  But honestly.....I also think he may be dumber than a box of rocks.

All of this, plus only well pled allegations are treated as true. In federal court that means you have to plead facts, not just broad conclusions. It isn't enough to say "they stole the election" or "votes were flipped," you have to articulate facts that plausibly lead to the conclusion that voted were flipped or the election was stolen. And that standard becomes even more demanding if one pleads fraud. In that event you need to plead very particularized facts, that who, what, when, where, and why of the fraud. That is precisely why Trump's attorneys keep disclaiming fraud in court. If their claim is based on fraud, they basically need to know the details of how the fraud occurred before filing suit. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HornOnTheBayou

HornOnTheBayou 9062

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

basic motion to dismiss at the early stage of trial is, assuming everything plead is true, have they written something that a court can grant a judgment on.  it's a pretty low bar. 

say i sued kate upton for negligence.  i'd need to plead all the elements of negligence, namely, that she owed me a duty of care, that she breached that duty, and that i suffered damages due to her breach.  i could plead that i tripped on a rock after staring at kate upton's tits while walking by on the sidewalk and broke my leg.  but kate upton doesn't owe any duty to me to keep me from gawking at her glorious titties.  so i'd get dismissed out of federal court for failure to state a claim. 

so, if rudy didn't state a claim (and, at this point, safe to assume he didn't), despite the truthfulness of what he's written (and he probably doesn't pass that bar either), he's going to get dismissed. 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Generally speaking, yes.  But there are numerous other reasons to dismiss.  For example, even if true, the allegations may fail to state a claim.  If my claim against the state of Georgia is that a dinosaur shit in my cheerios, maybe that's true....but it fails to state a claim against the State of Georgia.  Or, I may state some super-true facts...but I don't have standing to to bring a claim on those facts -- "I'm suing because a dinosaur shit in neonmoon's cheerios," I don't have standing to make that claim.  Or plenty of other defects.  Maybe you state true facts, but you ask for a remedy that the court doesn't have the legal power to grant - "I demand that the court enjoin all dinosaurs from shitting."  Being that the court knows no dinosaurs exist, and further, even if they did, they are not beholden to a court, case dismissed because I can't grant you any relief.  

I'd say that Rudy knows this, and is just slinging inflammatory bullshit.  But honestly.....I also think he may be dumber than a box of rocks.

I really do appreciate the legal eagles breaking all of this down for us. Thanks to both of you. However, in the case of Elfenix vs Brisketexan, the court sides with Elfenix. His explanation involved discussion of Kate Upton's tits. Brisket took a more unorthodox approach in his analogy by discussing dinosaur shit.

And since this thread about Kate Upton's tits and dinosaur shit is worthless without pictures:

r/shittymoviedetails - In Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm comes across a massive pile of dinosaur shit. This is subtle foreshadowing to the Jurassic Park franchise's eventual decline.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106900

Posted
Posted
All of this, plus only well pled allegations are treated as true. In federal court that means you have to plead facts, not just broad conclusions. It isn't enough to say "they stole the election" or "votes were flipped," you have to articulate facts that plausibly lead to the conclusion that voted were flipped or the election was stolen. And that standard becomes even more demanding if one pleads fraud. In that event you need to plead very particularized facts, that who, what, when, where, and why of the fraud. That is precisely why Trump's attorneys keep disclaiming fraud in court. If their claim is based on fraud, they basically need to know the details of how the fraud occurred before filing suit. 

Great follow up. The heightened pleading standard for fraud claims - and stating the obvious thing that conclusory statements aren’t facts - are surely in play here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

BOO-YAH!

 

 

Stylist:  "How you like your hair, girl?"

Patron:  "Carone Mugshot Bouffant" 

Stylist:  "I got you fam"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14650

Posted
Posted
No, but I know what Strunk & White say:  "omit needless words."  Most Latin in legal writing is needless words.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Well, seeing if I could find anything from Garner online, I see that Thomas Reavley died this week at age 99, the oldest still serving judge in the federal judiciary.  He is a "relic" of the time when the Fifth Circuit was one of the best of the regional courts of appeal.  RIP.
Back on topic, Wayne Schiess includes it in his 10 legal words and phrases we can do without. https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2008/06/ten-legal-words-and-phrases-we-can-do.html

So, inter alia, inter alia?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

All of this, plus only well pled allegations are treated as true. In federal court that means you have to plead facts, not just broad conclusions. It isn't enough to say "they stole the election" or "votes were flipped," you have to articulate facts that plausibly lead to the conclusion that voted were flipped or the election was stolen. And that standard becomes even more demanding if one pleads fraud. In that event you need to plead very particularized facts, that who, what, when, where, and why of the fraud. That is precisely why Trump's attorneys keep disclaiming fraud in court. If their claim is based on fraud, they basically need to know the details of how the fraud occurred before filing suit. 

Probably worth noting for the peanut gallery.  There are three stages of a litigation where it can be "dismissed."

The first is at the pleading stage, and is the classic dismissal for failure to state a claim or demurrer.  There is no evidence before the court except the complaint/petition of the plaintiff and the answer of the defendant.  Courts have to be cautious at this stage lest they deprive a plaintiff of a valid claim before giving discovery or any other court procedures and devices to prove its claim.  This is why everything of a factual nature the plaintiff says in its complaint/petition is taken as true, as if it can and will be proven if given the opportunity.

The second stage is somewhere in the middle, where some discovery of evidence has taken place (or should have taken place, but hasn't because someone is a dipshit).  This is summary judgment.  Here, there are additional facts before the court and the court has to decide if the evidence is sufficient to let the case go to a jury for decision (a material question of fact).    This one again is set up to favor the plaintiff (or proponent of a claim), but not everything is taken as true,  because there has been an opportunity to develop evidence to support a claim.

The final stage is either immediately before or after the case is given to the jury.  In this one, all the evidence that is going to come in has been collected and presented to the jury or the court.  If that evidence is insufficient to prove the case, it can be taken from the jury and dismissed (directed verdict) or, after the jury has rendered a verdict, but the evidence was insufficient to support it (judgment non obstante veridicto/jnov or judgment as a matter of law/jmol).  This standard is complicated as fuck and generally is set up to let the disputed questions go to the jury and not to take them away and also to defer to the jury's findings.

Any of these can be and sometimes is called a "dismissal."  So too when a jury rules against the plaintiff.  The most classic "dismissal" is the first one, because it is the one where the rule actually calls for dismissing the case.  The others, as you see by their names, are forms of judgment.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19528

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Beginning to remind me of something.  Can't quite put my finger on it, but it's about 90 miles east of Austin.

spacer.png

 

 

 

Two thoughts: When was the last time Bama was ranked that low and I love the graphic about 77-0.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34752

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's fucking obscene.

If that is in the nature of legal fees, as opposed to salary, that is very likely unethical and could be the subject of bar discipline.

 

why would her salary be reported in an FEC filing?

 

as that filing is only half of october, that's $8,132.82/day.  at 16 hours a day, every day, that's over $500 per hour.  i think there's a big deposit involved. the filing covers november as well, but only $30,000 in that month.  i'd imagine she's coordinating investigators which might bill through her firm and also want money up front (anyone dealing with trump needs to get as much as possible up front for obvious reasons).   

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And this was one of the judges on Trump/FedSoc’s SCOTUS shortlist. Womp 

Yeah, he is actually one of the more dangerous Trump appointees from a political/judicial philosophy standpoint.  But probably would have been nommed by any GOPer of the last 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably worth noting for the peanut gallery.  There are three stages of a litigation where it can be "dismissed."

At what stages, if any, can the people filing the suits keep introducing new evidence?

Like if they are defeated in a lower court, can they keep appealing and keep searching for evidence to make their case?

Because it seems like if you file a suit, you should be filing it on what you have in hand, not what you *might* have in the future. 

I shouldn't be able to lobby the lottery commission to give me winnings based on the notion that I *might* buy the winning ticket in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106900

Posted
Posted
At what stages, if any, can the people filing the suits keep introducing new evidence?
Like if they are defeated in a lower court, can they keep appealing and keep searching for evidence to make their case?
Because it seems like if you file a suit, you should be filing it on what you have in hand, not what you *might* have in the future. 
I shouldn't be able to lobby the lottery commission to give me winnings based on the notion that I *might* buy the winning ticket in the future.

With very few exceptions (none that I can think of that would be in play here so far), your record is made at the trial court, and that’s what you’re stuck with the whole way up.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28222

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


With very few exceptions (none that I can think of that would be in play here so far), your record is made at the trial court, and that’s what you’re stuck with the whole way up.

I don’t think this is correct. Otherwise Trump’s Elite Strike Force wouldn’t be saving the thousands of exhibits they have that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump won in a landslide. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53505

Posted
Posted

Every voter in each state can be a new plaintiff though, can’t they?  So they just keep going at it from different directions and again anytime some new piece of hearsay or non-contextual video shows up, at the trial court level. The point isn’t to win, if it ever was. It’s to sow enough doubt among followers that they can claim to have support for the R legislatures to steal it away. That’s why every democrat appointee ruling is partisan, and every republican one is either a deep state plant or your run of the mill traitor. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t think this is correct. Otherwise Trump’s Elite Strike Force wouldn’t be saving the thousands of exhibits they have that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump won in a landslide. 

Apparently it's like football - you need to lose all of your early games, because you're saving your touchdowns for the national championship.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...