In Which Team Rudy G — No Longer Furtively Tucking His Shirt — But Instead Bleeding, At The Ears, Some Dark Chestnut Ink… Gets Bounced Outta’ PA

It must be said: all the boot black in America won’t make Rudy a lawyer able to win… any of these stupid suits. And — no surprise — he’s lost in a truly humiliating way, tonight, in federal court in Pennsylvania.

He made wild eyed assertions, along with Sidney Powell (Ex-Gen. Flynn’s lawyer), not two days ago at a cringe-worthy press conference… as shoe polish streaked down the sides of his face. Humiliating. Tonight, the able federal district court Judge Brann bounced him out, and told him his claims were so laughable, and his requested remedies so unsupportable — that he is not allowed back, for another (amended) try. Essentially, there is nothing he could now say or do, to make out a legally cognizable claim of the sort he suggested. Credibility is fragile, in a court of law — once lost… it rarely may be regained:

…Plaintiffs [Rudy and Trump] ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice….

Leave to amend is denied. “Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility.”140 Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right; (2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment would unduly delay resolution of the issues. This is especially true because the Court would need to implement a new briefing schedule, conduct a second oral argument, and then decide the issues. . . .

Unsurprising — that Rudy’s “drippy octopus ink temples“… don’t know much about any actual election-, or Constitutional- law, any longer. Onward, grinning, anew.


There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: