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.
Maybe she needs to spend less time before the press and more time proofing her court filings?
I suspect this ‘notice requirement’ still doesn’t have dry ink.
Judge Pamela Pepper. It's at the bottom of the document.
FWIW, looks like the Rudy team has developed some pretty compelling and clear cut irregularities that provide low hanging fruit on the mail in ballot side of things so my take away is that Wisconsin is off the near term critical litigation path as far as Sidney's case is concerned. She can always redraft and refile if appropriate
The Kraken ate her homework...
Remember, folks, Sidney is not trying to stop the steal. What she’s doing is going to take much longer, and will continue on even if Rudy wins cases enough for President Trump to get his 2nd term. Sidney and Rudy are working together in some senses (sharing information and amplifying each other for PR reasons) but ultimately, she’s on a different schedule and has different intentions than Rudy.
How much time is needed to allow for Powell to do her job correctly?
Rather than criticizing our team members while they are giving their all effort, what are you doing? Another march on the state Capitols should be planned and executed, and resources are needed to sustain this fight. Participate constructively!
Also, attorneys at this level are not writing their own paperwork. She is still ultimately responsible -— but perhaps she has a saboteur working for her from that state???
my guess.
the judge is lying.
or falsifying documents.
or both.
I said, “”In another motion,” there are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. See https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Michigan-Complaint.pdf
Reading is fundamental.
vote in person.
file in person.
period.
How many of the FR lawyers would call Sidney Powell and help?
She and Wood are trying. She, nor Wood are being paid by the
Trump campaign.
Doing more than Jenna Ellis, the Never Trumper and Jay Sekulow
combined. WTH has Jenna Ellis done beside run her mouth?
I said, “In another motion,” there are numerous spelling and grammatical errors. See https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Michigan-Complaint.pdf
Reading is fundamental.
I expect an apology from you. It would be the decent thing to do.
The heck is going on with her? She’s a well known serious lawyer from what I’ve read. ?
Obama appointee, so she’ll slow roll anything Republicans file.
If this is accurate, this is extraordinarily sloppy work.
No, it is very, very basic. If she in fact did not do this, to say that this is sloppy work would be an understatement.
You have to be one of the most unpleasant people here.
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.