HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DC Judge Boasberg won't i...

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 02:06 PM

DC Judge Boasberg won't issue and injunction against Pence in WI voter case. Sanctions possible.



Tweet text:
Mike Scarcella
@MikeScarcella
·
Jan 4, 2021
Just in: DC Judge James Boasberg won't issue and injunction against Pence in Wisconsin voter case. Here's the ruling: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv3791-10
Image

Mike Scarcella
@MikeScarcella
And the bigger picture here from Judge James Boasberg:

"[A]t the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel"
11:52 AM · Jan 4, 2021

17 replies, 3906 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply DC Judge Boasberg won't issue and injunction against Pence in WI voter case. Sanctions possible. (Original post)
Nevilledog Jan 4 OP
sandensea Jan 4 #1
Stallion Jan 4 #2
world wide wally Jan 4 #3
TomDaisy Jan 4 #13
Gothmog Jan 4 #4
Midnightwalk Jan 4 #5
denbot Jan 4 #6
cp Jan 4 #7
SoonerPride Jan 4 #8
SheltieLover Jan 4 #11
chia Jan 4 #12
mountain grammy Jan 4 #16
BadgerMom Jan 4 #9
lagomorph777 Jan 4 #10
dlk Jan 4 #14
George II Jan 4 #15
Gothmog Jan 4 #17

Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 02:09 PM

1. Coup de grace - and coup d'etat

All this should leave Cheeto cooped up in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 02:25 PM

2. Generally Courts Retain the Discretion to sanction the Named Parties, their Attorneys or BOTH

nail 'em

PARTIES:

WISCONSIN VOTERS ALLIANCE
E3530 Townline Road
Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216;
PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS ALLIANCE
1621 Huddel Avenue Lower
Chichester, Pennsylvania, 19061;
GEORGIA VOTERS ALLIANCE
151 Main Street
Senior, Georgia 30276;
ELECTION INTEGRITY FUND
1715 Northumberland Drive
Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309;
ARIZONA VOTER INTEGRITY ALLIANCE
8019 East Tuckey Lane
Scottsdale, Arizona 85250;
LYNIE STONE
10410 East Prince Road
Tucson, Arizona 85749;
BARON BENHAM
8019 East Tuckey Lane
Scottsdale, Arizona 85250;
DEBI HAAS
5530 Rivers Edge Drive
Commerce, Michigan 48382;
BRENDA SAVAGE
1715 Northumberland Drive
Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309;
MATTHEW DADICH
1621 Huddel Avenue
Lower Chichester, Pennsylvania 19061;
LEAH HOOPES
241 Sulky Way
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317;
RON HEUER
E3530 Townline Road
Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216;
RICHARD W. KUCKSDORF
W2289 Church Drive
Bonduel, Wisconsin 54107;
DEBBIE JACQUES
1839 South Oneida Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304;
JOHN WOOD
151 Main Street
Senior, Georgia 30276;
SENATOR SONNY BORRELLI
2650 Diablo Dr
Lake Havasu City AZ 86406
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN PETERSON
2085 E Avenida del Valle Ct
Gilbert AZ 85298
REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW MADDOCK
1150 South Milford Road
Milford, Michigan 48381;
REPRESENTATIVE DAIRE RENDON,
4833 River Wood Road
Lake City, Michigan 49651;
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID STEFFEN
715 Olive Tree Court
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54313;
3
REPRESENTATIVE JEFF L. MURSAU
4 Oak Street
Crivitz, Wisconsin 54114;
SENATOR WILLIAM T. LIGON
90 Bluff Road South
White Oak, Georgia 31568; and
SENATOR BRANDON BEACH
3100 Brierfield Road
Alpharetta, GA 30004

ATTORNEYS:
/s/Erick G. Kaardal
Erick G. Kaardal (WI0031)
Special Counsel for Amistad Project of
Thomas More Society
Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 02:27 PM

3. Apparently "Because Trump said so" does not constitute legal precedence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 04:28 PM

13. looks like their "i've heard rumors" argument also - shockingly - failing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 02:38 PM

4. This trial judge is not happy



https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv3791-10

Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 03:11 PM

5. Here's the parts I liked

It starts off with a boom

Plaintiffs’ aims in this election challenge are bold indeed: they ask this Court to declare unconstitutional several decades-old federal statutes governing the appointment of electors and the counting of electoral votes for President of the United States; to invalidate multiple state statutes regulating the certification of Presidential votes; to ignore certain Supreme Court decisions; and, the coup de grace, to enjoin the U.S. Congress from counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and declaring Joseph R. Biden the next President.


In addition to being filed on behalf of Plaintiffs without standing and (at least as to the state Defendants) in the wrong court and with no effort to even serve their adversaries, the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution. It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States.
The Court will deny the Motion.


It just keeps going. First paragraph of the background basically says the plantiff's are longwided bullshit artists in my opinion

To say that Plaintiffs’ 116-page Complaint, replete with 310 footnotes, is prolix would be a gross understatement. After explicitly disclaiming any theory of fraud, see ECF No. 1 (Complaint), ¶ 44 (“This lawsuit is not about voter fraud.”), Plaintiffs spend scores of pages cataloguing every conceivable discrepancy or irregularity in the 2020 vote in the five relevant states, already debunked or not, most of which they nonetheless describe as a species of fraud.


He addresses standing first.
Although they claim to have been “disenfranchised,” ECF No. 4 (PI Mem.) at 37, this is plainly not true. Their votes have been counted and their electors certified pursuant to state-authorized procedures; indeed, any vote nullification would obtain only were their own suit to succeed.


What am I supposed to do to Wisconsin?!?
Moving on from subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must also pause at personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cannot simply sue anyone they wish here in the District of Columbia. On the contrary, they must find a court or courts that have personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, and they never explain how a court in this city can subject to its jurisdiction, say, the Majority Leader of the Wisconsin State Senate. Absent personal jurisdiction over a particular Defendant, of course, this Court lacks authority to compel him to do anything.


This sounds like "Wow these guys are not only dumb but they don't speak good English"
Even if the Court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it still could not rule in Plaintiffs’ favor because their central contention is flat-out wrong. “Plaintiffs claim that Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides a voter a constitutional right to the voter’s Presidential vote being certified as part of the state legislature’s post-election certification of Presidential electors. Absence [sic] such certification, the Presidential electors’ votes from that state cannot be counted by the federal Defendants toward the election of President and Vice President.” Compl., ¶ 32 (emphasis added); see also PI Mem. at 1. More specifically, “Plaintiffs [sic] constitutional claims in this lawsuit are principally based on one sentence in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.”

That sentence states in relevant part that the President “shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and . . . be elected[] as follows: [¶] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1.

Plaintiffs somehow interpret this straightforward passage to mean that state legislatures alone must certify Presidential votes and Presidential electors after each election, and that Governors or other entities have no constitutionally permitted role. See Compl., ¶ 55. As a result, state statutes that delegate the certification to the Secretary of State or the Governor or anyone else are invalid. Id., ¶ 58. That, however, is not at all what Article II says. The above- quoted language makes manifest that a state appoints electors in “such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” So if the legislature directs that the Governor, Secretary of State, or other executive-branch entity shall make the certification, that is entirely constitutional. This is precisely what has happened


He's hitting his stride...
Plaintiffs’ theory that all of these laws are unconstitutional and that the Court should instead require state legislatures themselves to certify every Presidential election lies somewhere between a willful misreading of the Constitution and fantasy.


He is mad and it sounds like he will be going after the plaintiffs
Yet even that may be letting Plaintiffs off the hook too lightly. Their failure to make any effort to serve or formally notify any Defendant — even after reminder by the Court in its Minute Order — renders it difficult to believe that the suit is meant seriously. Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.


I like picking out my own tidbits from these decisions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 03:21 PM

6. Nicely laid out.

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 03:28 PM

7. Thank you for this synopsis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 03:31 PM

8. Fantastic post. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 04:13 PM

11. Ty!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 04:15 PM

12. Very helpful. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnightwalk (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 05:35 PM

16. Wow!

Discipline the shit out of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 03:41 PM

9. K and R

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 04:04 PM

10. Ouch!

But how do you really feel, Your Honor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 04:37 PM

14. If sanctions are not ordered, there wouldn't ever be a case where they would be

There is no middle ground in this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 05:01 PM

15. I hope he decides to follow through with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2021, 05:45 PM

17. From Prof Hasen

Prof Hasen think that there will be sanctions https://electionlawblog.org/?p=120201

Federal District Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Excoriates Wisconsin Voters Alliance for Attempt to Overturn the Results of the Presidential Election Through Litigation
Posted on January 4, 2021 11:05 am by Rick Hasen
Start here:

Plaintiffs’ aims in this election challenge are bold indeed: they ask this Court to declare unconstitutional several decades-old federal statutes governing the appointment of electors and the counting of electoral votes for President of the United States; to invalidate multiple state statutes regulating the certification of Presidential votes; to ignore certain Supreme Court decisions; and, the coup de grace, to enjoin the U.S. Congress from counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and declaring Joseph R. Biden the next President.

Voter groups and individual voters from the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona have brought this action against Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his official capacity as President of the Senate; both houses of Congress and the Electoral College itself; and various leaders of the five aforementioned states. Simultaneous with the filing of their Complaint, Plaintiffs moved this Court to preliminarily enjoin the certifying of the electors from the five states and the counting of their votes. In addition to being filed on behalf of Plaintiffs without standing and (at least as to the state Defendants) in the wrong court and with no effort to even serve their adversaries, the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution. It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States. The Court will deny the Motion.

Read the whole opinion and let me know why these lawyers should not face sanctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread