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.
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)
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!!!
"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."
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.
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?
Mostly*** its all inside baseball. It boils down to:
1. Rudy getting added to the team, no problem.
2. the Democrats doing all they can to obstruct.
3. the judge telling the AP they can’t intervene or otherwise get into the courtroom.
4. the judge ignoring natters and refusing to drop the case.
5. the good guys asking for three things:
a. a bit more time (one day) to meet filing deadlines in order to compensate for the obstruction of the other team.
b. an ability to add NEW INFORMATION to original complaints.
c. expedited discovery.
For the most part, that’s all just routine legal maneuvering and boring legal process.
It won’t become overly interesting until we see what NEW INFORMATION the Trump team intends to add to the complaint, and what they’re able to find when granted expedited discovery to backstop the new information.
A growing risk for the bad guys... as it seems they’re trying to actively obstruct access to information Trumps team has a right to get from them. Could see the Judge hold them in contempt if that trend is sustained... but expect they’ll try to keep it to resistance vs flagrant obstruction of the Judge’s orders... all of that still pretty routine.
***
I’m not a lawyer... but speak the language a little.
Later
So Boockvar has now filed a response to the restored complaint alleging a deprivation of the equal protection of the law:
“The assertion of a constitutional Equal Protection violation is doomed to fail, she alleged, because the campaign doesnâÂÂt claim that state election officials engaged in discrimination when they allegedly failed to enforce state voting laws uniformly in every county.”
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/gov-law-northam-pol/2020/11/20/id/998103/?oRef=mixi
In short, geographical discrimination is O.K., and it was proper to have different rules in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because thier was no discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or other group based methodology.
I am quite confident that Judge Brann will view the evidence submitted and conclude that PA election violated the equal protection clause of the the Fourtheenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by having different rules in different places and for different classes of voters. The big issues are enjoining the certification of PA’s election and the drastic remedy of voiding hundreds of thousands of votes, including those cast lawfully that are mixed in with the illegal or fraudulent ballots. Ultimately, that point will go up to SCOTUS. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show this weekend!