Posted Nov 10, 2020, 9:35 AM UTC
Is this real? It’s not in crayon.
I think Trump paid someone to use them big words n stuff.
Yes, it is real. First of 5 filed today and yesterday.
[removed]
Is this real? It’s not in crayon.
The original is, they had to type it up or it wouldn't be accepted.
He ate all the crayons
I like that Donald Trump is not one of the parties. I choose to use this document as further proof that not only a Corporations real people, but you can also elect a corporation as President.
So is confirmed by the corporate being first:TIME:Player^© LLC^™, candidate elect for the Division of Cook^®. This post is not consent to contract with the flesh and blood freeman.
ManWithDominantClawCorp, in association with Brian Damage and Partners, a subsidiary of HemRage Solutions released this press statement earlier today
What is this type of document called? A complaint? Brief?
Its a 'Portable Document Format', commonly abbreviated to PDF.
Not to be confused with a PDA which is a Parliamentary Display of Affection.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night
The thing about arsenal is they always try to walk it in
Thankfully now unbanned after the last PM change
How do I open it, Jack?
This is what an application looks like if you throw civil procedure to the wind.
Torn between laughing and wincing.
It’s a complaint. Their way of originating process.
do they not have written submissions (do they call them briefs)?
because this 'complaint' thing looks like a cross between a statement of claim and submissions.
Brief is more of a colloquial term. You do a memorandum in support of a motion.
This is when I practised in federal IP law in the US anyway.
And yeah maybe because this one is urgent relief the complaint contained more of the memo - I haven’t looked at the whole thing
Waiting for Trump to go full sovcit
Waiting? Honey, the chickens have flown the coop. The Baha Men have found who let the dogs out. Cher no longer believes in life after love.
I guess we're still waiting to find out if it is sovereign citizen or Soviet citizen
Second. The paperwork is in.
Cher has never believed in life after love. She can feel something inside her say that she really doesn’t think you’re strong enough. There is no evidence that she thinks anyone else is strong enough either.
I love you lot. This is one of the few subs where 20 year old pop culture references can work.
There’s just no talking to you is there?
No, but I don’t need you any more.
Only got a few Paragraphs in. But one of the complaints is that people may have been told their vote was done incorrectly, and were thus given a chance to fix it...what kind of shady dealing is that!
what kind of shady dealing is that!
While I can't be fucked actually reading the document, would the AEC getting on the phone to tell somebody they stuffed their vote up even be legal under Australian law?
For what it's worth, I have also always wondered whether the AEC have any obligation to tap somebody on the shoulder in a polling booth if for some reason it became blatantly obvious somebody screwed their vote up, or was very obviously walking directly from the registration desk to the ballot box and intending to cast a blank ballot.
Other strange questions I have now that I think about it:
I've worked for the AEC at many an election.
We won't stop anyone casting a blank ballot and many people do cast blank ballots. It's still a democratic expression, just one that will be counted as informal.
If someone casts an absentee or declaration vote, the staff at AEC HQ will usually contact them after the fact to verify their declaration if there are any issues with that side, but not about the actual content of the ballot paper.
If I put my Senate vote into the House of Reps voting box, will it count?
Yes! We will just move it to the Senate count. It happens semi regularly.
How many other random things do the scrutineers find in the voting boxes, including but not limited to people putting how to vote cards in the box.
How to vote cards are pretty common. Usually not too much else. Occasionally people drop things in there, but they can't get them back until after polls close at 6pm.
If someone casts an absentee or declaration vote, the staff at AEC HQ will usually contact them after the fact to verify their declaration if there are any issues with that side, but not about the actual content of the ballot paper.
Before or after the election? It's one thing to verify a ballot, but quite another to tell somebody they can have another go at it.
Definitely not saying "try again". It'd be more like if someone cast a declaration vote and their details were mostly correct but they used a previous address. The AEC might contact that person to verify they did cast the vote and get them to confirm their enrolled address, before accepting the declaration and opening the vote envelope to admit that vote to the count.
there's a reason the secret ballot is called the Australian ballot.
If I read things correctly the other day, this was done in certain states and their voting laws allowed this. It's kind of dicey trying to apply Australian electoral law to the US election because their laws are managed state by state - yes, even during a federal election - and can vary. Case in point, when they count postal votes is determined be state law, some count at the start and done count at the end - I think one state even allows up to 2 weeks for postal votes to come in, provided they're postmarked before the polls were closed.
PA is one of those from what I read (hence why Trump is so focused on them). The main purpose is to allow enough time for military and expat votes to arrive (some of whom might be in countries where the mail is worse than unreliable).
Because only the democrats were allowed to cure!
It's almost as though repetitive use of the word 'evidence' imbues some magical, evidentiary quality upon bullshit.
As you can see, evidentially, from the evidential evidence, Your Honor (US Spelling), pigs do, evidentially, fly. I refer you to the evidence.
This reminds me of the time I was against a self rep who spoke little English but managed to draft extensive pleadings with titles like "MFI Affidavit".
Can you imagine the pleading summons if you tried this on in our courts ?
Since Lord Atkins, or at least Dixon in Victoria Park, it has been well eatablished that Australians are some of the most effective amd efficient lawyers on the planet. Something we often dont recognise.
As for Clive Palmer's lawyers......
lolwut?
So how did you get the gig representing Clive?
Who is the sad fucker who had to write this document
Someone presumably paid many of dollars
Given Trump’s tendencies, you’d fucking want money up front, eh?
Barron Trump wrote it.
They signed it at the bottom. :)
Man I tried but I could get that far 😂
It’s a requirement for complaints in the US. Attorneys put their names on the complaints.
In a country where laws seemed to be named after what the youngest child of the bill sponsor wants it named ("Ok, we're going with the Jubbly Wubbly Act, go freedom!"), I am not surprised to read a slightly more florid version of the Denis Denuto Defence applied on behalf of a head of state with a single-digit emotional age.
Single-digit emotional age in months.
The first paragraph is already worthy of a strike out as it doesn’t plead a fact.
It... it doesn’t get better.
Incidentally I’ve reviewed a bunch of UK pleadings lately as a consultant on Australian law and this American rot is beginning to set in. It’s definitely not as bad and would probably still pass muster in NSW but I know Queenslanders would chuck shitfits about it.
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick
NAL, just a lurker, but have to say when I got to “Allegheny and Pennsylvania counties conducted the canvassing and tabulation in convention center rooms and placed observers far away from the action”. ( my emphasis ) I realized this was really serious legal was going down.
It’s proper law talkin’ stuff !
Ah yes, the "our observers needed binoculars" claim that was sorted out on day 1 of the count after they first tried to make out their observers weren't even allowed in the room, only to have to admit to the judge they were.
Truly, the difference between being 3 feet away and 6 feet away allowed the election workers to secretly add 200,000 ballots for Biden onto the pile.
As an American in Oz, this needs to stop. I can spend hours explaining the procedural basis for this, but the end result remains "this is batshit fucking crazy.*"
*That is an American legal term of art.
[deleted]
Y’all need to listen to opening arguments. It’s a podcast by an American constitutional lawyer and he will 100% spend about an hour dissecting this
II would rather watch Trump spend and hour in court as a self rep arguing this...
Dear lord. Just thinking about it makes my brain melt. Dude is incoherent. I just couldn’t.
Just imagine him rattling off states that he won Bigly.
I also want odds on him claiming Ontario.
For those of us less scholarly folks, The LegalEagle Youtube Channel covered this and other related lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign just a few hours ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E
[deleted]
I got seven pages in before my eyes crossed involuntarily... does anyone know if this shamble of a document gets any better?
It doesn't. Honestly it's like there were two authors. The first stream-of-consciousness forum rubbish. The second just going through decorating it with irrelevant authorities that evade the point.
[removed]
Its the seppo US attorney here (and Im actually from PA). I’m relevant again!!!
Complaint is the correct term, the Trump campaign is seeking declaratory/injunctive relief in federal court. In order to invoke federal jurisdiction they have to show a federal question on the face of their pleading, otherwise it will be routed to state court.
As to the garbageness of this, this is about as bad as it gets. Linda Kerns is a Philadelphia attorney known for filing this kind of hot garbage on behalf of conservatives and libertarians. The two guys from Porter Wright were the poor saps tapped to deal with this by their Washington DC headquarters. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 11 allows sanctions for filing junk pleadings, but its pretty hard to get sanctions—four elements to be met and most judges will not impose them absent wanton behavior.
Also someone mentioned 28 USC 1746–that verification is imposed on the plaintiff, not the attorney. You would have to show that the person lied in the document and signed off on its truths. These are hard cases to prove unless you have clear cut evidence, and even then you have to show its material to the matter. Its not impossible, but its usually not worth the time/hassle to DOJ prosecutors, especially when it has to do with a complaint that can be liberally amended.
The respondents here will file a Rule12(b) motion to dismiss and probably get relief. Trump’s people may file another complaint if it is dismissed without prejudice, but I highly doubt they will if they lose once. Venue is appropriate in Middle District of PA because the certification occurs in the state capital of Harrisburg.
EDIT: I should mention they’re seeking federal court because they are seeking a better route to SCOTUS. They do not want to litigate in state court because their case would have to wind through the state appellate process and limits their grounds for certiorari to SCOTUS. If they go from MDPA to 3d Cir, the appeal to SCOTUS would have more grounds for review (do you all call it claims in error?)
EDIT PART 2: I went to the electronic docket for this matter. For those interested in scheduling:
Do you have a motion to strike out pleadings as embarrassing?
see http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/ucpr2005305/s14.28.html
Yes--Rule 12(f):
Problem is, like most federal civil practice is the States, is use and enforcement. Typical solution is to let defense move to dismiss, force the attorney to fix the issues in an amended. If they don't get it after a few times, maybe then you see this used.
but that's almost all of this complaint.
Yep. Frustrates all of us too.
Yep, basically the exact same as here, judges are very reluctant to strike out garbage claims without giving multiple chances to turn the pleading into something that can at least be argued.
Imagine striking out the President's pleadings for being immaterial and scandalous garbage - you'd have to have balls of titantium even after the 3rd or 4th round of amendments.
I'm disappointed.
You are contractually obliged to defend Freedom Court and everything that happens in it.
Worst Seppo ever. Almost Canadian.
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. From what I understand, your jurisdiction demands some structure and form to a pleading. Here's it's a more a dry heave of facts followed by some law you borrowed from your partner's pleadings from 10 years ago.
Actually, how quick will they be to summarily dismiss the matter? Even if everything is ridiculous, will there be a hesitation given the significance of the claim is about as big as you get, and the person making the claim is somebody in a position of obvious standing as compared to your typical vexatious claimant clogging the system.
Matter will probably be expedited because its pleading for injunctive relief. They're claiming irreparable harm by the certification of the election count, and given the nature of the case, it will probably be scheduled as soon as the Commonwealth files a motion to dismiss. From a time perspective, unsure. From a procedural perspective, I'm hard pressed to find an actionable claim here on the pleadings.
Thanks very much for this my learned seppo colleague