Thread by @questauthority, OhmyGODShe REDACTED THE DECLARANT'S NAME????????? I just checked the docket

OhmyGOD

She REDACTED THE DECLARANT'S NAME?????????

I just checked the docket - there's no indication anything was filed under seal. There's no indication there's any intent to file anything under seal.

Her leadoff document, which documents an alleged international conspiracy, doesn't disclose who the affiant IS?

OK. For the nonlawyers, let me explain.

The American justice system is adversarial. That is a fundamental thing. It's like trial by combat but with less blood and more snark.

This means that the opposing party gets to - and this is important - challenge your testimony.

When you put forward a witness, the other side gets to challenge their testimony. That can't effectively be done when you don't know who they are. (This is above and beyond the more fundamental issue that you can't judge credibility without knowing who is making the allegation.)

If your witness needs to remain hidden due to legitimate concerns for safety and so on, there are ways that can happen. But those ways do not include hiding their identity from the court and the other side's lawyers. There are procedures. None of them seem to be happening here.

The submission of this document is, to be blunt, sanctionable. It'll probably slide in the interests of a speedy GTFOOMCR* but it should be sanctioned.

* the final half of that stands for "of my court room." You should be able to get the rest.

But it gets even better - because, apparently, her witless is "of sound mine."

John 11:35

Back to the main document. I'll look at the rest of that drek later.

So we've got a nameless affiant - actually, that should be 'affiant,' the scare quotes are virtually mandatory - alleging that Smartmatic engaged in a conspiracy with Chavez.

Did she submit a declaration?

Sorry for the delay - basting

Right. So I went looking to see if Powell (or any other attorney) submitted a declaration to accompany the exhibits. I don't see one.

I do note that the exhibit numbering seems to go "8, 9, 10, 101, 102" which might be a numbering system somewhere but if so I don't know where.

So as far as we know, this Exhibit 1 is just something she found on the Internet (I fear this may be literally true) and not actually something she can submit as testimony without just utterly shattering her Rule 11 obligations to the court.

Truly we live in the dumbest of timelines.

This is off-the-rails nuts. Now we're jumping from Smartmatic to Dominion - with a single, lonely, inexplicably italicized "of" as a bonus - with no explanation of the link. And we're turning to the "Declaration of HarriHursti" (Who may or may not actually be "Harri Hursti").

There is, of course, no explanation of who Harri Hursti is, whether this purports to be expert or fact testimony, what the basis is for either, and if I had printed this I would have just thrown the file physically across the room and ohgod it's only page 4.

So let's look at Exhibit 107 - which turns out to be RECYCLED WITHOUT EXPLANATION FROM A DIFFERENT CASE? THIS ISN'T HER OWN WITNESS? WHAT THE CRAP??

Seriously, what the hell is this other case even? What's its relevance? Why was this declaration submitted? This is purported expert testimony. Has this person been accepted as an expert and if so in what and for what purpose?

You cannot - I feel like this should go without saying - just slap an exhibit label on random crap and dump it into the docket and expect to be taken seriously, let alone have something accepted as evidence. This. Is. Not. How. Anything. Works.

Also, these are statements that appear to allege that bad things can happen, they are not even offered as evidence that bad things did happen.

Paragraph 9 is special. Just loads and loads of factual assertions without citations to anything, including her less-than-52-card-deck of daffydavits.

Seriously, this is a paragraph jam-packed with what we refer to in the trade as "conclusory allegations," which is a lawyerly way of saying, "yeah, you're just pulling this stuff right out of your ass."

Making insinuating statements like this to suggest wrongdoing or malfeasance that you cannot prove does not play well in court. At all.

Either they disregarded those concerns or they decided that they had been sufficiently addressed between the time the "Texas Board of elections" [sic] rejected the system and Michigan accepted it.

Neither scenario gives rise to a claim of any kind.

Also, the rejection by Texas needs a cite, the "disregarded all the concerns" is a conclusory allegation and just sweet lord what am I reading here?

So she's submitted an unauthenticated paper of some kind from somewhere without submitting the CV of the alleged "expert" (who she hasn't apparently retained)?

How -- just how -- just what the hell - HOW DO YOU EVEN?

Exhibit 2 is a paper from somewhere. That is all we can say about it. There is no indication of source on it anywhere, so it's impossible to tell whether it's a preprint or peer reviewed, or even whether it's from a book or a journal.

And it's printed in landscape. Badly.

This is absolutely bloody disgraceful legal work.

Oh yeah - and there's no PINCITE for the quote, so if I want to find the context I have to crawl through the whole landscape-printed with cut-off footers paper to find it.

Courts just love that.

And - just putting the cherry on top of the nuts on top of the whipped cream on top of this stale turd sundae - the paper hasn't been OCRed.

I can't find it. Not only can't I find it, I can't find anywhere in there that discuses rewriting a program or physically hacking. And the authors - there are more than one - seem to refer to themselves in the first-person plural; the alleged quote is first-person singular.

That's not to say that the quote isn't in the paper, of course. It might be in the parts that were cut off when the landscape thing happened, but I'm really starting to doubt it's in there.

Oh good. Now we've got an "expert" who is at least being claimed as someone who knows they are providing evidence for the plaintiffs.

Except that when I go to "Exhibit 101" I don't find a "Ramsland Affidavit." Instead, I find whatever the hell this is supposed to be.

Clown. Damn. Shoes. Give them back to the clowns, Sidney.

Anyway, hell with trying to find that - it's not 10, 102, or 103.

Back to the main turdburger.

WHAT DOMINION "COMPUTER FRAUD"?? You didn't allege any computer fraud by Dominion yet. You alleged that some company you allege was some kind of predecessor to Dominion engaged in fraud, but not that Dominion did. And everything else you claim is just that they're insecure.

I swear, Dominion might have to sue her sorry ass before all this is done. They're getting ACORNed right out of business by these nimrods.

OK, so a lot of these are the same tired allegations that have already been found wanting by, at this point, many other courts.

I guess at least half this complaint is a clip show?

More allegations here of criminal misconduct. No citations to support them yet.

I keep drafting parts of a response in my head while I'm doing this.

The phrase "are, frankly, incoherent" keeps popping up.

And can I just say that indenting the damn paragraph numbers and the list letters exactly the same way doesn't improve the readability of this filing - even before all the missing spaces?

OK. And one more paragraph/list making assertions about the facts they claim they can prove.

I'm going to take a quick break for some more cooking, but we'll be back to continue with the "Expert Witness Testimony" section shortly.

This is so awful.

Something that occurred to me:
We're 8 pages in and we've not heard a word about the actual plaintiffs in this case, or how they were injured, or what causes of action they're asserting.

This looks like a cursor mark. But it's not. It's a | that's there because no particular reason.

I was going nuts trying to figure out why I couldn't move the cursor before I realized it was just yet another inexplicable typo.

There are some factual allegations in here that seem very unlikely to withstand scrutiny of any kind. It'll be interesting to see how this gets handled - I doubt (even without looking) that there will be standing, so probably there won't be a hearing of any kind.

(Or, rather, I doubt there will be an evidentiary hearing. There may be one on the inevitable motion to dismiss.)

Before we plunge in further, I'm hearing that the metadata shows that this was written, at least in part, by one Juli Haller. If so, that name seems to match a current government lawyer with deep ties to the Trump Administration, including work on the 2016 Transition.

I mean just what the hell, what the hell, what the total complete and epic hell, what in all seven damn circles of hell is this.

Never mind just our hell - this is "what the hell in all the hells in the original D&D Immortal Realms thing with all those hells" territory.

"As explained and demonstrated in the accompanied redacted declaration"??? There's ANOTHER redacted declaration? What the fuckityfuckingfuck are these people smoking??? Whatever it is, they've clearly had either too much or not enough.

Also, how the hell does SAM missile system electronic intelligence gathering make you an expert on voting system or give you insight into what agents acting on behalf of China and Iran are doing?

Also, the 305th MI appears to be - wait for it -

an Initial Entry Training unit.

And I just skimmed the affidavit briefly. It appears to be incoherent AF.

And we've got some other "expert" of unexplained origins or qualifications who seems willing to also testify to potential tampering of some kind.

Allllllllrighty then.

And holy crap I just scrolled down and all 75 pages of this is complaint?? I just assumed there were more zibits at the end.

So much for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief". Fed R Civ P 8(a)(2).

OK - sorry for the delay. We worked out a food swap in lieu of having company over, so some of my Turkey (which is absolutely SPECTACULAR this year, I'm so happy) was just traded for some awesome-looking vegetable dishes.

Moving on, we reach the "Jurisdiction Andvenue" section of the complaint. Claiming federal question jurisdiction, which isn't a surprise.

But in all seriousness -
How do you submit something this un-proofread? It's not like you didn't have time. It's been three damn weeks since the election.

And, yeah, copypasta from pdf can do this, but you see it when it's happening. So how do you not fix it?

Also, this is argument and not, as far as I can tell, part of jurisdiction and venue. At all.

And we are now 10 pages in and only just getting to the section where you explain who your parties are.

In fairness, she's got plaintiffs here who are allegedly nominees for Elector, so she can plausibly get past the injury-in-fact prong of the standing inquiry.

This is strange phrasing: "plurality of 154,188 votes." I'd expect "lead" or something similar. Especially since Biden is over 50.6% in Michigan.

The other plaintiffs are voters and "Republican Party Chairman" for their counties, but they don't seem to be suing on behalf of the party. Standing is very questionable just on the injury prong.

And the rest of the parties section is such an incoherent copypasta disaster that it hurts my eyes to look at it.

However, for nonlawyers:
Suing a state can be tricky, and even experienced lawyers can sometimes accidentally sue the wrong officials or agencies.

I don't know if these are the right officials or entities. Wouldn't be surprised either way. We'll see what the motions to dismiss say.

Going to take another break - time to eat.

And, critically, to drink.

That was a wonderful meal, I'm finally completely happy with my brine recipe for the turkey, and I've got part of a bottle of a really very good Bordeaux in me, part in my glass, and the rest in the bottle next to me.

Let's get back to it, shall we?

I believe that, when we left, we'd just finished dealing with the parties section, leaving us not even 20% of the way through this dribble. Let's pick up from there.

Oops - accidentally forked the thread. It picks up here: https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1332059936147312650?s=20

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1332059936147312650?s=20

Latest Threads Unrolled: