Good evening, followers of frivolous performative litigation. Not only do we have a new case, we've got a whole new category of post-election litigation: "Trump Can't Be Impeached" lawsuits.

And this one comes with a special bonus - it's been filed by dentistlawyer Orly Taitz. https://twitter.com/jkryn/status/1352335042056486912

Taitz, for those of you who are unfamiliar with her, achieved a certain notoriety for her birther lawsuits during the Obama Administration. Those suits were all terrible, often in ways that no lawyer could possibly have predicted.

During this election cycle, Lin Wood and Sidney Powell have done their best to replace Taitz as the craziest lawyers to engage in the malpractice of election litigation. I was a bit surprised by Taitz's silence, but it seems that she's making a late attempt to reclaim her title.

Let's dig in to the complaint.

The first thing that catches my attention is the length. Orly was known at one point for throwing so much stuff at the docket that it had to be shipped as freight, but she seems to have gone in a different direction. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.807850

The complaint is apparently only five pages long, and one of those is this cover page. Given that the last page has to have the signature block, that means that the complaint itself can't be much longer than three pages.

That's a little bit short.

As in, I haven't looked carefully yet but it's virtually certain that at least one important section will be missing from the complaint.

Although it's also possible that the ultraslim nature of the filing is the result of omitting things like auxiliary verbs and punctuation.

Orly was always known for unconventional formatting choices, and it looks like this is no exception. The "PARTIES" section of the complaint is apparently centered.

And I don't mean the heading is centered. I mean the whole section is centered.

For those who don't already know, "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" is Orly's creation. As far as I know, she's the sole officer and probably the only active member - although it's possible that a few people forgot to turn off monthly contributions after Trump was elected.

The legal argument here is creative, novel, and self-defeating. She's arguing that a Senate trial that could result in a ban on Trump holding office in the future is somehow "moot."

It's not necessary to go past that first paragraph to see why this case will be dismissed. Taitz lacks standing.

In order to have standing, she has to have an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the defendants and can be redressed by the court. She has none of those.

Injury-in-fact inquiry:
"Dr. Taitz, is 'Defend Our Freedoms Foundation' really Donald John Trump in disguise?"
"No, your honor."
"Go away. Now."

Taitz isn't literally Trump; she and her 'foundation' aren't injured by the trial.

They also aren't injured by the trial for other reasons, including that they are alleging a generalized grievance and that the injury, if any, would come from the verdict, not the trial itself.

It's also not clear that she is suing the right people. There's room to question whether Schumer would have the power to unilaterally halt proceedings, and since it's a presidential impeachment, Chief Justice Roberts will probably be the presiding officer, not Harris.

I say "probably" because the post-inauguration nature of the proceedings does leave a little bit of room for doubt on that front.

In addition to the lack of injury and the issues with the choice of defendants, it's also incredibly unlikely that any federal court has the power to tell the Senate that they can't hold an impeachment trial.

So this case is done already. But let's keep reading.

The next section is "allegations of the complaint" which is probably intended to be the "facts" section, but maybe Orly is embracing truth in advertising.

Orly thinks removal from office is the only remedy available in an impeachment. So it would appear that Orly's constitutional literacy hasn't changed much in the last few years.

And the next section is "Prayer for Relief."

Wait, no...

Ohmygod. Even for Orly... I can't...

She forgot to bring the claims.

She has LITERALLY failed to state a claim. There are no claims. This is a complaint that has no claims.

How do you do that?

OK, that's another fatal flaw in the complaint. But at least we now know why the document is so short.

So after providing no basis for relief of any kind, Orly asks the Court to step in, issue a declaration that would contradict the Constitution and enjoin the United States Senate from conducting a trial.

Also, she STILL hasn't figured out how to sign pleadings - this was a chronic issue during the birther days, too.

For the nonlawyers:
Unless her signature is "dated this 01.20.2021 1pm EST" she put the signature in the wrong place.

On the line, Orly. The signature goes on the line. Not under it. On it.

You also don't need both slashes, but don't worry about that for now. Let's start with the "where" first.

Overall evaluation:
She misspelled "clownselor."

This case is heading for an ignominious dismissal. The only real question will be whether she manages to serve the defendants before the case becomes entirely moot. I'm going to bet on "no" but stranger things have happened.

/fin

I've got no idea when this happened.