Posted on 12/02/2020 9:11:48 AM PST by Alter Kaker
There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning’s motion, there was no affidavit filed with the motion, the complaint is not verified and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should not be required.
At 3:15 that afternoon, the plaintiffs filed another document. It appears on the docket as a motion to amend or correct, but the document itself is captioned, “Plaintiffs’ Corrected Motion for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief.”
This motion indicates that the earlier motion was an inadvertently filed draft and acknowledges that the referenced proposed order had not been attached.
At the end of the “corrected,” or amended, motion, under the heading “Certificate of Electronic Service,” the motion states,
There is a proposed order attached to the afternoon’s amended motion.
The proposed order asks various injunctions, declarations and orders. It does not ask for a hearing. Because the afternoon motion indicates that the plaintiffs “will” provide electronic notice to the adverse parties, the court does not know whether the plaintiffs have yet provided notice to the adverse parties or when they will do so.
Until the plaintiffs notify the court that they have provided notice to the adverse parties, the court will not take any action because the motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 65(b).
If the plaintiffs have provided notice to the adverse parties, under Civil Local Rule 7(b) those parties have twenty-one days to respond to the motion and under CivilL.R. 7(c) the plaintiffs have fourteen days to reply. While the caption of the motion includes the word “emergency” and the attached proposed order seeks an “expedited” injunction, neither the motion nor the proposed order indicate whether the plaintiffs are asking the court to act more quickly or why. As indicated, the motion does not request a hearing. It does not propose a briefing schedule.
sh!t
Hard to believe she screwed up giving notice. That is really basic stuff.
WTF?
Trust Qanons plan or something
Sidney Powell should have asked for an expedited hearing to take place before December 14, 2020 in addition to informing the other side about this lawsuit.
I thought Sidney only filed cases in GA & MI so far
The judge is an Obama appointee.
ROFLMAO...
sheesh....
She is a little young to be past her prime but...
Failing to give notice? Idiotic. In another motion, Powell made numerous spelling and grammatical errors.
She is not to be taken seriously.
btw, for those that think that what she did is fine..imagine paying $500 an hour for this kind of shoddy work. I would ask for a refund on the hours spent on that kind of screw up
So she files successful cases in other states, but this is rejected since she didn’t notifying the other party which is a state that she was sueing them? Is this for real? I doubt she told MI & GA she was sueing them in advance.
The judge just stalling for time...this is bullshit
If the fact pattern she is alleging is provable, the crimes she alleges are it's going to be worked at a slightly higher and more serious level and forum than a Wisconsin state civil judge.
And the time lines are going to be moot. Thinking this omission is intentional and the case is just a place older for future action. Lots of reasons she would go this route.
It doesn’t matter who appointed the Judge.
No Judge is going to..or even should..look the other way when a lawyer fails to give notice
Basic 101 of a lawsuit.
Heck, I bet most who take the LSAT before they even get into law school know this basic fact.
She need to hire an attorney in each State that is familiar with that particular State’s procedures and rules. Lin Wood ought to know GA at least but for the rest, they need local help.
Sidney’s case is interesting, but it is anything but precise (shotgun vs rifle with some shocking allegations). There is no chance it will result in stopping the steal in the next month as it would take a really long time to be heard and the discovery will be a mess.
Long-term it might be the most interesting case, but we need real precise actions right now to challenge the fraudulent votes that can be heard immediately.
I support Sidney doing her thing and look forward to learning more, but right now the real cases are the ones like they are going to present today at 5pm in Nevada. These are concrete things that CAN be heard and adjudicated now that will stop the steal.
At this point, I’m drifting towards the belief that Powell is a plant. Possibly unknowingly/unwittingly, but the damage being done...by her slapshot, Michael Avenatti-like antics...to the credible work being done by Team Giuliani may by now be irreparable.
Maybe the initial filing was poorly submitted to either get idea if judges were actually reading the case and not dismissing it out of hand..or giving plaintiffs time to marshall irrefutable evidence. Hard to believe it would be due to incompetence...listening to Dr. Tarvers’ testimony in Michigan means we have been being cheated systematically for decades...
Sounds like this judge is being a dick. They know time is of the essence and could’ve given her a chance to fix these things.
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.