Posted on 11/18/2020 9:17:34 AM PST by truthkeeper
Please use the source url above to access the case Docket.
The last entry, made November 18th, is quite involved. I understand that Rudy argued the case for about 5 hours.
I would appreciate it if FReepers knowledgable in legal matters could dissect and help us sort through this.
It appears to me Judge is giving the Trump team an opportunity to cure some matters before proceeding to an Evidentiary hearing. Is that correct?
Note: A couple of more entries were made to the Docket since I posted this. I am referring to the November 18, 2020 Order.
What is the document number?
I guess these are the hoops they have to jump through to get to SCOTUS.
There was none in the given link, but the next assigned # would be 163 or 164
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Joseph Ayeni, Black Political Empowerment Project, Common Cause Pennsylvania, Lucia Gajda, Stephanie Higgins, Meril Lara, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference, Natalie Price, Tim Stevens, Taylor Stover. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gupta, Rani) (Entered: 11/17/2020)
The Judge ordered this today:
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing previously scheduled for 11/19/2020 is CANCELLED. Linda A. Kerns, Esquire's 131 motion for an order to show cause is DENIED. Plaintiffs will file any brief in opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss by 5 P.M. on 11/18/2020. Defendants may file any reply briefs by 12 P.M. on 11/19/2020. Plaintiffs may file a new motion for preliminary injunction by 5 P.M. on 11/18/2020. Defendants may file any opposition briefs by 5 P.M. on 11/19/2020. Plaintiffs may file any reply brief by 12 P.M. on 11/20/2020. Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint by 5 P.M. on 11/18/2020. Defendants are not required to file any response to that motion for the time being. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 11/18/2020. (jr) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
State law said that voters have until six days after the election — this year that was Nov. 9 — to cure problems regarding a lack of proof of identification. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots could be accepted three days after Election Day, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar submitted guidance that said proof of identification could be provided up until Nov. 12, which is six days from the ballot acceptance deadline. That guidance was issued two days before Election Day.
“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said in a court order. (Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Scroll to the bottom of the list for the latest filings and orders.
No. 162
Is President Trump the only candidate that has ever contested the results of an election?
And why would that be the case?
Because any losing Democrat would be concerned that their fraudulence would be uncovered in a recount!!!
Ultimately, as I understand it as a layperson, what matters won’t be the 100s of affidavits etc. but that the judges and election officials in PA and GA ignored the legislative requirements and made up their own rules.
Because of that = unconsituational.
Fraud need NOT be proven by Rudy or Lin.
But they do have a mountain of evidence of fraud they’ll present as well.
Wow, thank you!
"And just like the Defendants’ obstructive behavior with the interrogatories, the Defendants delay and over-litigate what should be a straightforward process with respect to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas.Our evidentiary hearing is set for 10 days after the filing date of this suit. The Court has stated it wants to hear evidence, quickly. In order to comply with the Court’s tight schedule in a timely fashion, Plaintiffs filed the subpoenas on November 15, 2020.
- If the Court had not scheduled an evidentiary hearing, these subpoenas may not have been necessary.
- If the Defendants’ had not refused to meet the Plaintiffs in the middle on the interrogatories, these subpoenas may not have been necessary.
- If the Defendants hadn’t attempted to kill democracy in the darkness of unobserved election processes when they denied our poll watchers access to vote counting, none of this would be necessary.
But the Court has set this case on an expedited schedule, and the Defendants have ignored that by continuing to delay, and by forcing Plaintiffs to spend time and resources on litigating over facts and testimony to which they have a right."
The particulars of yesterday are such that the Defendants (Biden, Boockvar, et al) are attempting to run out the clock on cert deadline.
There are a lot of docket entries to sort through. It does appear that there was some confusion about an amended complaint in which Trump’s counsel dropped a claim about being denied “meaningful access” to watch and inspect the mail in ballots after the PA Supreme Court ruled there was no state law right to do so, that Giuliani wasn’t ready to abandon. If so, he needs to file a motion to restore the argument, as the complaint can only be amended once as of right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. From what I can get from the first law firm quitting as Trump’s attorneys, they didn’t have the balls to make the arguments that need to be made. Rudy does, so he jumped in, but election law was not his area of specialty and it showed.
I found a few good accounts of what happened in court yesterday:
https://www.inquirer.com/news/trump-pennsylvania-lawsuit-election-results-rudy-giuliani-hearing-case-williamsport-20201117.html
https://www.sungazette.com/news/top-news/2020/11/judge-gives-lawyers-more-time-to-present-evidence/
http://www.innercitypress.com/pamd1boockvaricp111720.html
The last link is entertaining, as Judge Brann gives out of town counsel suggestions for where to dine and drink.
As for comments about Judge Brann being an Obama appointee, that is true but that was done as a compromise with Senator Toomey. I know Judge Brann. He and I were classmates years ago, and I haven’t had any interaction with him since then. He is a very traditional Reagan-Bush Republican, who sits as the only federal judge assigned to the quaint city of Wiliamsport, PA. It is best known for hosting the Little League World Series each year.
The Trump campaign choose to file their PA lawsuit in federal court in Williamsport, as they wanted this judge to hear the case. He will do a fair job. From what I read, he isn’t denying the truth of the affidavits of what happened in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The legal problem is that the PA Supreme Court ruled no one has a right to witness the signatures of the mail in ballots. Unless the U.S. constitution’s “equal protection” clause can supersede state law, the case is lost. If he disagrees with that argument, Judge Brann will do nothing to obstruct appellate review potentially to SCOTUS. So, stay tuned for further developments later this week.
Not 'unConstitutional', but 'unlawful'. It's the state laws that are considered, not the Constitution. Not following state law is 'unlawful'.
We get enough word definition abuse from the globalists as it is. Words have meaning.
And THAT is the problem right there. That signature, and a PDF of the ballot, should be sent to the respective Registrar of voters as a vote confirmation. As it stands now, voters have no record of their actual votes.
That needs to change.
Ah. Thanks for the correction.
Unlawful = will not be counted because an unlawful ballot is not a legally cast ballot and shouldn’t have the same effect.
And riots will begin about five minutes after SCOTUS does that.
Strategically the Dims should “concede” or at least not resist Trump winning....then they can continue the fake Crusade he stole the election.
What about our Democracy!!
Then they could mount an all out effort to keep the House
Otherwise, in 2 years they will be completely powerless...although, what, or who, would stop them from cheating in the mid-terms?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.