Federal judge throws Trump campaign (and Giuliani) out of court and it's a doozy

[StarfishSaver]

If Webster ever decides to include a definition of ass-whuppin' in it's dictionary, it should just cut and paste from this opinion ...

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

[elleng]

1. In the intro, the judge wrote:

'Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise
almost seven million voters.'

I guess we know, from there, what the 'answer' is.



He continues: 'This Court has been unable to find any case in which
a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms
of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when
seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with
compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this
Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief
despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened.'

THEN: 'Instead, this Court has been presented with strained
legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this
cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its
sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At
bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.'

[rsdsharp]

2. I would respectfully suggest Rule 11 sanctions to Judge Brann.

Imposed sua sponte. With a cattle prod.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Indeed

He called one of the claims "a Frankenstein's Monster"...

[MFM008]

4. The money shot...........

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.'

[StarfishSaver]

10. And this.

"Even if they could state a valid claim, the Court could not grant Plaintiff the relief they seek. Crucially, plaintiffs failed to understand the relationship between right and remedy... Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works."

[crickets]

15. That paragraph alone is a thing of beauty. nt

[soothsayer]

5. More highlights here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214597179

[Kablooie]

6. God, that's a hell of a lot to write and proof read. And a total waste of judge and lawyer's time.

Trump should have to pay for all the lawyer's time it took to write all this.
I know it's not the law and so he won't be required to but still, I think he should.

[Ms. Toad]

8. As a former judicial clerk, I had the same thought. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

7. Agreed.

I would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of that. (Of course, knowing such an ass-whuppin' was a distinct possibilty, I would have declined to represent him, declined to bring the claim, etc.

On the up side, I see lots of nice connections and clear "ripped from the headlines" writing I can add to my colleciton for Civ Pro, Con Law, and bar students. The Devin Nunes Cow defamation case was particularly fun, especially after the torts prof justified omiting defamation because it was a completely irrelevant claim.)

[Maru Kitteh]

9. WHOA. That is BLISTERING

[eppur_se_muova]

11. "Dismissed with prejudice" is becoming one of my favorite phrases. nt

[Blue Owl]

12. Suck it, Diaper Donnie!

[rso]

13. Court

Rudy Giuliani’s losing “streak” ?.

[brer cat]

14. That was a great read.

Thank you for posting the opinion, StarfishSaver.

[struggle4progress]

16. ... In the evening of November 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court

against Secretary Boockvar, as well as the County Boards of Elections for the following counties: Allegheny, Centre, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia. The original complaint raised seven counts; two equal-protection claims, two due-process claims, and three claims under the Electors and Elections Clauses ...

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs also underwent their first change in counsel. Attorneys Ronald L. Hicks, Jr., and Carolyn B. McGee with Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP filed a motion seeking to withdraw from the case. The Court granted this motion, and Plaintiffs retained two attorneys from Texas, John Scott and Douglas Brian Hughes, to serve as co-counsel to their original attorney, Linda A. Kerns ...

Thereafter, on Sunday, November 15, 2020 – the day Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss was due – Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) with the Court. This new complaint excised five of the seven counts from the original complaint, leaving just two claims: one equalprotection claim, and one Electors and Elections Clauses claim. In addition, a review of the redline attached to the FAC shows that Plaintiffs deleted numerous allegations that were pled in the original complaint ...

... on November 16, 2020 ... less than 24 hours before oral argument was to begin, Plaintiffs instituted a second series of substitutions in counsel. Ms. Kerns, along with Mr. Scott and Mr. Hughes, requested this Court’s permission to withdraw from the litigation ... I granted the motions of the Texan attorneys because they had been involved with the case for approximately seventy-two hours. Because oral argument was scheduled for the following day, however, and because Ms. Kerns had been one of the original attorneys in this litigation, I denied her request. I believed it best to have some semblance of consistency in counsel ahead of the oral argument. That evening, attorney Marc A. Scaringi entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Mr. Scaringi asked the Court to postpone the previously-scheduled oral argument and evidentiary hearing. The Court denied Mr. Scaringi’s motion for a continuance; given the emergency nature of this proceeding, and the looming deadline for Pennsylvania counties to certify their election results, postponing those proceedings seemed imprudent.

On November 17, 2020 ... attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani entered his appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs. With this last-minute appearance, Plaintiffs had made their final addition to their representation ...

[struggle4progress]

17. ... Individual Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that they suffered an injury-in-fact ...

Individual Plaintiffs have adequately pled that their votes were denied ...

However, Individual Plaintiffs fail to establish that Defendant Counties or Secretary Boockvar actually caused their injuries. First, Defendant Counties, by Plaintiffs’ own pleadings, had nothing to do with the denial of Individual Plaintiffs’ ability to vote. Individual Plaintiffs’ ballots were rejected by Lancaster and Fayette Counties, neither of which is a party to this case ...

... Individual Plaintiffs have not shown that their purported injuries are fairly traceable to Secretary Boockvar. Individual Plaintiffs have entirely failed to establish any causal relationship between Secretary Boockvar and the cancellation of their votes. The only connection the Individual Plaintiffs even attempt to draw is that Secretary Boockvar sent an email on November 2, 2020 to some number of counties, encouraging them to adopt a notice-and-cure policy ... Further, that this email encouraged counties to adopt a noticeand-cure policy does not suggest in any way that Secretary Boockvar intended or desired Individual Plaintiffs’ votes to be cancelled. To the contrary, this email suggests that Secretary Boockvar encouraged counties to allow exactly these types of votes to be counted ...

Their prayer for relief seeks, in pertinent part: (1) an order, declaration, or injunction from this Court prohibiting the Defendants from certifying the results of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania on a Commonwealth-wide basis; and (2) another order prohibiting Defendants from certifying the results which include ballots the Defendants permitted to be cured.

Neither of these orders would redress the injury the Individual Plaintiffs allege they have suffered. Prohibiting certification of the election results would not reinstate the Individual Plaintiffs’ right to vote. It would simply deny more than 6.8 million people their right to vote ...

... Crucially, Plaintiffs fail to understand the relationship between right and remedy. Though every injury must have its proper
redress, a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted ... Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race ...