Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty shocking, really, even in the context of the dogshit surrounding it (meaning the other dogshit lawsuits).

As someone who earlier today walked a multiply-dog-shitting dog, I can tell you that the quality drops off drastically at each repetition. I guess we've gone from Logs to Soft-Serve to Dribbles to Flecks of Earwax in Dirty Water.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

As someone who earlier today walked a multiply-dog-shitting dog, I can tell you that the quality drops off drastically at each repetition. I guess we've gone from Logs to Soft-Serve to Dribbles to Flecks of Earwax in Dirty Water.

Definitely the latter.  Spewed from the fundament at high velocity.

Posted
 Not a lawyer, but there's no fucking way that Gohmert has standing in that case, is there?

Gohmert - “I’m standing on Jesus and the Law and Order. Saying I have no standing is a cheap dirty lie. “
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whew.  That one doesn't  rely on questionable evidence (all the Kraken suits) or procedures (Paxton), but it makes a really borderline frivolous constitutional argument.  https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Gohmert-v-Pence.pdf

Pretty shocking, really, even in the context of the dogshit surrounding it (meaning the other dogshit lawsuits).

Quote

VP Pence has been sued by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Kelli Ward and other GOP mbrs in a far-fetched bid to overturn Biden's win

Plaintiffs ask Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump-appt'd fed judge in Texas, to find that Pence is authorized to pick pro-Trump electors on Jan. 6

Could a lawyer explain to me how a lawsuit can be filed against an individual who has not yet performed a certain act, with the goal of getting a judge to tell that person they don't have to perform that certain act?  I did not think that was how lawsuits work...

Posted (edited)

Louie wants to know if evidence that he dreamed inside his head is admissible in court.  Also, he wants to know what admissible means.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Could a lawyer explain to me how a lawsuit can be filed against an individual who has not yet performed a certain act, with the goal of getting a judge to tell that person they don't have to perform that certain act?  I did not think that was how lawsuits work...

Well, this is a "declaratory judgment," which sort of anticipates a dispute before it happens. The whole notion runs counter to the idea that American courts don't grant "advisory opinions" on unripe cases or before a concrete dispute or "case or controversy" has arisen. Usually, the dispute, or case or controversy has to be shown to be imminent, if not yet "declared." A classic case is patent infringement, where a patent holder has threatened the other with suit if they don't stop and the threatened party believes the patent is invalid.  The threatened party can commence a DJ to contest the validity of the patent without having to wait for the patent-holder to sue for infringement.  The threatened party will have to prove that the patent-holder was going to sue, though.

This probably pushes that notion to its limits and is thus not a valid declaratory judgment.

There are so many things wrong with that lawsuit that it's hard to know where to start.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

image.thumb.png.633c0829e28efe83e0c940e9e98fdef5.png

Yeah, that is the most farcical allegation of the suit. 

Arizona has sent one set of electors to the Archivist, as required by law.  The other set is illegitimate.

There is also a very disingenuous partial quotation of Bush v. Gore that suggests that a legislature, after choosing a popular vote to appoint electors, could crawfish post-election and appoint electors itself.  What Bush v. Gore says is that a legislature is free to stop using a vote to appoint electors by passing legislation to that effect prior to any such election.

This thing should be sanctioned.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that is the most farcical allegation of the suit. 

Arizona has sent one set of electors to the Archivist, as required by law.  The other set is illegitimate.

There is also a very disingenuous partial quotation of Bush v. Gore that suggests that a legislature, after choosing a popular vote to appoint electors, could crawfish post-election and appoint electors itself.  What Bush v. Gore says is that a legislature is free to stop using a vote to appoint electors by passing legislation to that effect prior to any such election.

This thing should be sanctioned.

This.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way--fun fact: Lewis Sessions is the reason that lawyers at that firm are not allowed to have couches in their offices.

Was it this one?

casting-couch-porn-in-a-me-too-world-bla

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Could a lawyer explain to me how a lawsuit can be filed against an individual who has not yet performed a certain act, with the goal of getting a judge to tell that person they don't have to perform that certain act? 


giphy.gif

Anti-quitsies, triple stamp
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

We did it.  We finally fucking did it.  I mean, it was only a matter of time with so many of these goddamned lawyers coming from Dallas.  But we finally reached one degree of separation between me and one of these frivolous Trump lawsuits.

Lewis Sessions and I used to work at the same firm.  And I'm almost certain that there's a lawsuit out there that has both our names on the signature block.

How proud I am.

By the way--fun fact: Lewis Sessions is the reason that lawyers at that firm are not allowed to have couches in their offices.

What do you need a couch for?  I thought it was common knowledge that secretaries prefer to be bent over the desk.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So filed in federal court in Texas on behalf of Arizona because of things that happened in Georgia and Michigan?

It's called venue shopping and they (Republicans) do this all the time to get favorable judges/rulings. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

What do you need a couch for?  I thought it was common knowledge that secretaries prefer to be bent over the desk.

Yeah, but apparently young associates need to be enticed with a couch.

Posted
53 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way--fun fact: Lewis Sessions is the reason that lawyers at that firm are not allowed to have couches in their offices.

Being that we are on surly, is this supposed to be a point for or against Lewis Sessions? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Being that we are on surly, is this supposed to be a point for or against Lewis Sessions? 

Publicly frowned upon,  but you give him a first bump the next time you run into him at the club.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Being that we are on surly, is this supposed to be a point for or against Lewis Sessions? 

Serious points against for (1) it being non-consensual/unwelcome, and (2) having gotten caught.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Serious points against for (1) it being non-consensual/unwelcome, and (2) having gotten caught.

Don't bury the lede next time. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Serious points against for (1) it being non-consensual/unwelcome, and (2) having gotten caught.

So his client (Baylor?) did not make him withdraw.....unlike the associate who made him withdraw? Amirite?
Posted
"Menial tasks". 
200.gif

No way an ethically challenged former stripper did not bang her way to the top of the fake hearing witness pile.

Giving hummers to Rudy’s associates is, perhaps, menial.
Posted
1 hour ago, mchookem said:

bc of course she was 🤣

I wouldn't put it past Rudy and the Q lawyer to have arranged her hire.  But I don't dabble in conspiracy theories that I just made up in my head.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I wouldn't put it past Rudy and the Q lawyer to have arranged her hire.  But I don't dabble in conspiracy theories that I just made up in my head.

You're one "People are saying..." away from becoming an iron-clad, indisputable alternate fact.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:


No way an ethically challenged former stripper did not bang her way to the top of the fake hearing witness pile.

Giving hummers to Rudy’s associates is, perhaps, menial.

image.jpeg.089904f963fa8bbe828e18f7009f785e.jpeg

Posted
36 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Did that question not come up? "So, what did you do for Dominion?". 

Objection your honor, that is not impertinent to our percavious redemptions of the standard dempunitive recitfied lawsuit of satisfactory forbinance.

Posted
I wouldn't put it past Rudy and the Q lawyer to have arranged her hire.  But I don't dabble in conspiracy theories that I just made up in my head.

Hire? Lease. Maybe.
Posted
5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

By the way--fun fact: Lewis Sessions is the reason that lawyers at that firm are not allowed to have couches in their offices.

No representation is made that any lawyer mentioned on this thread is more skank than any other lawyer mentioned on this thread.

Posted

This is the one Trump thread I can’t wait to follow in the new year. Seeing the pendulum swing from “Fraud we winz!” through “Evidence? We need evidence?” in 2020, to be followed with the swing through “Who knew you couldn’t overtly subvert democracy AND keep your bar card?” in 2021, is just going to be great entertainment.

  • Hook 'Em 3


×
×
  • Create New...