Marc Elias throwing serious shade at Jenna Ellis

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
oh boy, who is gonna tell her?

Jenna Ellis
@JennaEllisEsq
You media morons are all laughing at @RudyGiuliani, but he appears to have already established a great rapport with the judge, who is currently offering recommendations on martini bars for Team Trump in open court.
5:01 PM · Nov 21, 2020

[Gothmog]

1. Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court

Prof. Hasen is having fun https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118942

In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.

The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:

In other words, Plaintiffs 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.

In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted 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.” 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.

The court had many problems with the complaint, but this goes to the heart of the merits: “Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.”

[Nevilledog]

4. This stuff is just delicious.

[Raven]

6. This case was an insult to the judicial system not to mention to our

democracy.

[Laelth]

7. That's beautiful.

Courts may dismiss cases on a wide number of bases, but “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” is the equivalent of “GET OUT OF MY FACE WITH THIS BULLSHIT!”

It’s the equivalent of, “You haven’t been hurt, Plaintiff, so go away. Unless you can show that you have been hurt, the Court can’t grant you relief. Got it?”

It’s also, “Who filed this damn lawsuit? I am tempted to hold that attorney in contempt for frivolous litigation.”



-Laelth

[Ms. Toad]

11. The court actually found the two individual plaintiffs had been hurt -

But said the actions of the state didn't cause it. And even if, by some stretch of the imagination, the actions of the state did cause it the remedy for their hurt was to level up (count their two individual votes) not level down (disenfranchise all the other voters).

[BootinUp]

2. That one's a loon. nt

[ZZenith]

3. That is f*cking hilarious!

Could it be she’s impervious to judicial sarcasm?

“Uh, yeah, Mr. Giuliani, the nearest martini bar is just down the street on your left. Case dismissed, with prejudice. *(gavel smashes desk)* NEXT!!!”

[cilla4progress]

5. Elias is saving me on twitter

Rn

[Iliyah]

8. K & R . . .

"martini bars for Team Trump in open court"

Oh my.

[Takket]

9. the problem with hiring unscupulous yesmen/women and attention whores is.....

they can't actually accomplish anything for you when the chips are down because no person with knowledge or integrity would be working for drumpf in the first place. jenna ellis is just another example of a person that will do or say anything to get a taste of inner circle power, but in the end she's just a hollow skull with nothing to offer.

And frankly any lawyers participating in this absolute abuse of our justice system should be disbarred.

[Cha]

10. Rt.. lol@Marc.. This jdge, elllis?

Link to tweet

".. media morons".. lol Good to hear they're Laughing at shoe dye rudy, too.