THREAD: Good morning, followers of Rudy's judicial hijinks and other interested parties.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
THREAD:
Good morning, followers of Rudy's judicial hijinks and other interested parties. The First Amended Motion to Expedite the appeal of the Pennsylvania lunacy is now available.

Let's see how big a trainwreck this one is.

Michael Daniels
@mdaniels5757
Replying to @questauthority and @BobMIII
There is, and it's beautiful: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_9iB3nOzl3kp12OLwIh9wVVxLf0GVlO/view?usp=sharing…. h/t @MatthewStiegler and @j_remy_green.
8:52 AM · Nov 23, 2020

Unrolled thread here (best read at link for attachments)
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1330902115410128897.html

THREAD:
Good morning, followers of Rudy's judicial hijinks and other interested parties. The First Amended Motion to Expedite the appeal of the Pennsylvania lunacy is now available.

Let's see how big a trainwreck this one is.

That this will be a trainwreck is beyond question.

These yahoos are appealing the denial of permission to file a 2nd Amended Complaint. The grounds given by the court in denying permission were that allowing amendment would result in "undue delay."
Image

When you are filing a "Motion for Expedited Review" with a court of appeal asking for review of a decision that said that letting you do a thing would create undue delay, is it critical that you do everything humanly possible and more to show that you're not delaying anything.

The Super-L33T Strike Team Legal Farce waited a full day to file their appeal, and now they're re-filing because they messed stuff up the first time.

This is, it should go without saying, VERY NOT A GOOD LOOK RIGHT AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT.

But let's keep going.

The first three paragraphs basically boil down to "Hi, 3rd Circuit, we're the clowns you ordered. When do you want us to hit each other with the ladders and dump the whitewash on your head?"
Image

And, reading the 4th Paragraph, I am now very very very confused.

Hey, Clownsquad - WTF are you appealing????? Is it "all of it" or "just the denial of leave to amend"? Because here's the side by side between this and the original:
Image
Image

For the nonlawyers:

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how spectacularly and inexplicably terrible this is. There should NEVER, but particularly not when dealing with a motion for expedited review, be a need to ask "what are you appealing." The answer absolutely MUST be obvious.

And now we get to Paragraph 5, which manages to make this EVEN FRIGGING WORSE AND THAT LITERALLY SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.

I just can't even.
Image

They said in ¶4 that they are appealing the whole thing. But if there is no "case or controversy" - which is what they just said in ¶5 - the 3rd Circuit would be LITERALLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION to hear an appeal of the whole thing.

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." If you don't know that sentence by heart, if you don't know that sentence the way you know your own name, what the F@&K are you even doing in a federal courtroom?

If there is no case or controversy, there is no federal jurisdiction. At all.

Why on EARTH would you write that sentence in this document? In what galaxy do you live that this seemed a good idea?

And what the hell - now it's "there's no case or controversy but we're not waiving the claims and will brief the court about this thing that there is no case or controversy over?"

Someone call the circus and get them to collect their clowns.
Image

Also - WTFFF???

The District Court bloody well ADDRESSED the Marks v Stinson argument. It's on pages 22-23 of the opinion. Did they not READ the thing they are appealing? The District Court ALREADY FOUND that the argument doesn't work.
Image
Image

Because I guarantee you that the 3rd Circuit is gonna read the whole goshdarn opinion that's the basis of the appeal, if only because there's no way to figure out what's going on from the President's filings in this case.

Also, and seriously, if they don't appeal the standing finding now, and the case gets sent back down and Judge Brann reaffirms his rejection of that argument, CAN they appeal it if it goes back up, or is it Law of the Case at that point?

I genuinely don't know.

This is terrible work product.

What does "direct the District Court to promptly decide it on the merits" even mean here? Does it mean that they ARE challenging the standing finding? Or do they think the 3rd Circuit will do that for them without being asked?

I seriously have no idea what the absoluteF@&K.
Image

I should not be more confused about what you are asking the court to do when I'm 3 pages into your motion than I was when I started.

I am VASTLY more confused about what they are asking the court to do 3 pages into the motion than I was when I started.

OK. Paragraphs 8-9 appear identical to ¶¶2-3 of the first try, and any stupidity that was identified therein last night remains unchanged.
Image

(¶ 7 was largely identical to ¶1 from the first draft, but they added a bit asking the 3rd to direct the District Court to rule on the discovery disputes in this case in which the District Court found no standing, a finding that they may or may not be contesting atm.)

The new version of ¶10 (¶4 in the original) adds some argument as to why they (incorrectly) believe that nothing gets mooted today.
Image
Image

¶11 remains largely identical to ¶5 from the original, including the bit where they seem to be claiming that Due Process and Equal Protection are clauses of the Civil Rights Act and the bit where they completely misstate the holding of their key case.
Image

And their last 2 paragraphs appear identical to the last two from last night.
Image

So here's where we are -

They took a stupid filing and amended it in a way that leaves all the stupid stuff in while adding even more stupid stuff that's even dumber than the stuff that was in the original.
This is a terrible filing. It is a horrible filing. It is a no-good very bad filing.

I don't know what else to say. I don't want to guess what will happen next. We're well into the litigation territory pioneered by Orly Taitz, where one side is throwing paper around and crapping on desks and the other has to figure out how to respond within the legal framework.
But, y'all, this is a remarkably awful piece of work.

/fin
• • •

[soothsayer]

1. Sounds like another $20k day for Rudy

[Blue Owl]

2. Yeah! Time to bring back Oily Taint!

[onethatcares]

3. sometime I wonder

if she was another drag queen persona of Rudi's

[Blue Owl]

4. You know what they say -- truth is stranger than fiction...

[crickets]

5. Train wreck. K&R for visibility.

[COLGATE4]

6. Watching them litigate is like a person

playing chess with a Pigeon. Once the board is set up the Pigeon promptly proceeds to wander all over it, knocking over pieces and crapping as it goes. It then proceeds to proudly struct off, convinced that it has won.