Hear Ye Hear Ye All Rise In The Case 'Abolish Congress And President Because Trump Didn't Win'

Today, we would like to tell you about one of the greatest lawsuits in American history: Bravo v. Pelosi.

The federal "civil rights" lawsuit is the brainchild of Paul M. Davis, Legal Genius. Paul was fired from his in-house counsel gig at an insurance company after uploading videos of himself at the insurrection. So now, in a gift to us all, he is trying his hand at impact litigation.

In January, Paul filed suit on behalf of Latinos for Trump and Blacks for Trump asking the court to do very normal things like entirely rewrite the Constitution and create a new form of government with himself, Donald Trump, and Random Federal Judge at the helm because, and I quote, "Gondor has no King."

Poor Paul was fired by most of his clients in that first suit, so he withdrew from that case and filedBravo v. Pelosi. Now, Paul says, he represents the ideals of the "M90USA" movement, which he claims represents 90 percent of the country. You know, that definitely real and totally not made up 90 percent of Americans who think the entire government should be overthrown because of mail-in voting.

Paul's signature block used to include his former employer and a parenthetical that he was "[t]erminated after peacefully protesting[,]" but apparently Paul has now started his very own "law firm," with the very serious email lawyery email address of paullovesamerica@protonmail.com adorning his pleadings.

Who among us hasn't participated in an insurrection, gotten fired from our insurance lawyer job, and then gone full Q-MAGA?

Huff some glue, grab a jar of grannie's moonshine, and strap in. We are going for a ride!

Paul filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a proposed order, because he and his are being hurt VISCIOUSLY. And they are LOSING RIGHTS daily! So natch, he asks the court to do totally normal things like declare itself co-King of the United States government, with Donald Trump. And it's ... well, it's everything that you might hope a legal brief that cites Dinesh D'Souza would be.

By operation of the 20th Amendment, 3 U.S.C.Chapter 1, [the Help Americans Vote Act], and the 1960 [Civil Rights Act], the Article III federal judiciary is now the only branch of the United States government with constitutional authority to act.

That just SOUNDS right, doesn't it?

Pursuant to the evidence and the provisions of the Constitution and the United States Code set forth herein, which conclusively and irrefutably establish current "Vacancies" in the offices of President, Vice President, all 435 House seats, and 33 Senators, the judicial power vested in this Court under Article III of the Constitution compels the shocking but logical conclusion that, because this Court is the only Article III federal court in the entire United States presented with the relief requested herein, this Court is now effectively in charge of the United States government[.]

Spoiler: It was not a "logical conclusion."

But Paul, please tell us a little more about why your clients are entitled to this relief.

(1) they will suffer imminent and irreparable injury if Defendants are not immediately restrained; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law forthemental anguish of the terrifying realization that Defendants acts have resulted in an unconstitutional Congress, President, and Vice President (these offices are actually still vacant under the laws of the United States); (3) Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (4) there is no threatened harm that entry of the attached form of Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") would inflict on Defendants (other than on their pride); (5) issuance of the TRO is heavily in the public interest and would be entered according to clear public policy under the laws of the United States; and (6) Plaintiffs are willing to post a bond in the amount the Court deems appropriate. The bond amount must be nominal since there is no risk of harm to Defendants, other than a hit to their pride from exposure of their illegitimacy.


Okay then.

The motion then explains to the judge why he

must grant the TRO with or without notice to Defendants since every minute that passes prior to entry is another minute of severe mental anguish suffered by Plaintiffs and the putative class of tens of millions of Americans, including many millions of Texans, who understand or at least strongly suspect that Congress and/or the "President" and "Vice President" were not legitimately elected and who live every moment in fear of losing more civil rights.

Checks out.

Granting the TRO is not only required under the law, but merely reflects the attitudes of an increasingly strong majority of Americans.

That's not the way courts work, Paul. But I guess reality isn't really your thing.

There are, of course, not-so-veiled hail marys to the QAnon nuts to please be Paul's friend.

Though the Cabal of media entities described in Secret History will desperately and predictably (and pathetically) attempt to "spin" entry of the TRO as an"unconstitutional power grab by a Trump-appointed federal judge to thwart the will of the people" or similar, the exact opposite is true because entry of this order is necessary to save the Constitution. Such rantings will merely be the agonal gasps of the dying establishment recognizing the cold, hard truth—their reign of terror and corruption scheme on the People of the United States to line their own pockets and secure absolute power without accountability to the People, is at an end.

Paul also gives the judge Very Important Reasons to grant his motion, like

Failing to enter the TRO would effectively be this Court's declaration that the United States is no different than a third-world despotism.


Moreover, Plaintiffs would urge the Court to consider whether it wants to be responsible for the high risk of loss of life in terrorist attacks and military conflicts likely to arise.

Look at this terrorist attack you made me do.

Just for funsies — and, I guess, to pander to the sociopathic demographic he's trying to impress? — Paul attacks the Equality Act as "a tribulation-level nightmare" claiming it:

(1) forces Christian taxpayers to pay for abortions, (2) forces Christian adoption agencies to perform adoption services for "LGBTQ+" couples in violation of their religious convictions, (3) forces Christian schools and churches to hire LGBTQ+ teachers and pastors, (4) would effectively force the Christian bakery to bake that cake for the homosexual wedding or face a courtroom verdict, and will (5) force Christian doctors to perform abortions.

Those Democrats are such rascals! Always sneaking things into bills about how priests are required to perform live abortions during Mass!

"Tribulation," naturally, is defined as "a concept from Christian eschatology based largely on the Books of Revelation and Daniel." And "'Christian' is used herein as a metonym for all persons of faith with similar beliefs simply because Plaintiffs are Christians."

There is, of course, some gross anti-trans stuff, most of which we won't repeat. But there is one claim Paul makes that is just too amazing to exclude. According to him, the Equality Act

enables the unconscionable scenario where a female cosmetologist could be forced to make the impossible choice of waxing the genitals of a transgender biological male or suffer the legal repercussions of a discrimination lawsuit.

Why do we get the feeling that Paul spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about other people's genitalia?

But don't worry, Paul and his buddies are actually totally fine with the gays. It's just that the Bible says the First Amendment means Christians can discriminate.

To be clear, Plaintiffs bear no antipathy toward members of the LGBTQ+ community, but the Bible teaches in Romans that homosexual sex is a sin because it was not God's design for creation and, in Genesis 1:27, that God created "male and female," as human beings "in his own image." Christians have the right to the free practice of their own religion under the First Amendment, and H.R. 5, is in itself, unconstitutional.

There's also some more really fun stuff about abortion, I guess because, hey Republicans can never go wrong promoting sexism!

As Christians, Plaintiffs believe life begins at conception. See Psalms 139:15–16NKJV ("My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.") (emphasis in original). Therefore, pursuant to Bible, it flows logically that abortion is murder under the common law definition: "the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought."

There is a really fun anti-choice talking point making the rounds about how the Equality Act's pregnancy discrimination section means Kamala Harris will be performing abortions in the Rose Garden or something, so we guess that's what he's ranting about here.

How this relates to mail-in ballots remains to be seen.

But wait, there's more!

If H.R. 1 and H.R. 5 are not sufficiently shocking to the conscience, there are substantial pushes in Congress to cram down other radical legislation by a mere 51% majority of Congressional seats through eliminating the filibuster and the "Byrd Rule,"to allow passage of laws that would effectively eradicate the Second Amendment, replace capitalism with socialism through some version of the "Green New Deal"—using Rahm Emanuels' "crisis strategy" yet again—and secure permanent one-party rule through statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico and packing the Supreme Court.

We could sit here and talk about why most of these are actually good things and what giant hypocrites Republicans are when it comes to "norms," but, frankly, it's just not worth it.

And Paul explains that these terrible bills that try to force people to have gay sex with each other all the time aren't the only problems with our fake government! Oh no! From theres, says Paul, "[t]he nightmare only gets worse."

And why is that?

Mr. Biden's executive orders and agenda for the unconstitutional Executive Branch is highly likely to result in catastrophic financial and physical harm to Plaintiffs [... and] Mr. Biden's energy policy will result in terrorist attacks and foreign wars.

Of course.

That violations of HAVA and the 1960 CRA are violations of Plaintiffs' Suffrage Rights is obvious because if this were not the case, it would lead to the absurd result where the bereaved are deprived of a civil wrongful death claim against a murderer simply because the murderer was able to change criminal laws to avoid criminal prosecution. Moreover if the federal government will not enforce their own laws, which are specifically designed to protect Suffrage Rights, clearly private citizens have a right to do so in the courts, or else these laws may as well be erased from the U.S. Code.

It's true. If Random Federal Judge doesn't declare himself dictator, it's basically like laws don't even exist.

The states' failures to follow HAVA and the 1960 Act means every Congressman or Senator who was elected in 2020 (or 2021 as in the case of the two Georgia Senators) are not lawful officers of the United States.


As such their actions taken since January 3, 2021 must be restrained.


Title 3, Chapter 1 of the U.S. Code contain the process by which Congress must fill "Vacancies" in the office of President and Vice President, including counting and resolving objections to the Electoral College votes. 3 U.S.C. § 15. Whereas there are now a total of zero elected congressmen to fill the vacancies in the House, Congress lacks constitutional authority to exercise "legislative Powers" with only 67 Senators, and therefore could not have filled the vacancies in the offices of President and Vice President.


3 U.S.C. § 19 seems to mandate that the Senate Pro Tempore must act as President under these circumstances, but Senator Leahy was complicit in the conspiracy against Plaintiffs by approving the use of CARES Act funds for violation of HAVA with knowledge of HAVA, since he was in the Senate in 2002 when HAVA was passed, and therefore also needs to be restrained to the same extent as Biden/Harris until a new lawful congressional election can be held. In any case, the Court must recognize that neither the legislative branch, nor the executive branch has the constitutional authority to contravene any order for injunctive relief the Court now grants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

No big deal, Paul just wants a federal judge to declare that the entire government is fake.

all members of the 117th Congress, Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, who are in active concert with Congress, and all of their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, are restrained from exercising any and all executive and legislative power in a manner inconsistent with the laws, policies, and presidential executive orders that existed as of 11:59 am on January 3, 2021[.]


All members of the 117th U.S. Congress (collectively, "Congress") are restrained from exercising their legislative powers in Article I, § 1 of the Constitution except as to budgetary and fiscal legislation necessary to fund the continued operation of government[.]

The fake Congress can maybe kind of do some things, but only things that are the same things as Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell would have done.

Under no circumstances shall Congress alter any procedural rule as such rules existed prior to the Status Quo Date, including but not limited to abolishing the Senate filibuster or any other rule that has a similar effect, including the rule known as the "Byrd Rule" in the Senate.

We're almost surprised Paul didn't try to figure out a way to also void the 2018 House elections and make Paul Ryan Speaker again. (Oh shit, did we just give him an idea?)

Worried about what happens when our illegitimate Congress wants to do things? Don't worry, Paul has a plan for that! Fake Congress is to petition the court so that Random Federal Judge can make the final decision, with input from none other than Dear Leader Trump, himself.

As for the executive branch, they're all illegal and don't really count, so they can't do anything themselves. Like Congress, the fake Biden administration will be given an opportunity to petition the court. But any time the shadow Biden administration wants to do something, first, the court has to ask Donald Trump what he thinks. Obviously. Trump also gets to jump in and tell the judge any time he thinks the court is wrong.

Mr. Biden, his cabinet, Ms. Harris, and the entire Executive Branch, including all officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys thereof (collectively, the "Executive Branch"), are restrained from enforcing any executive order that did not exist prior to the Status Quo Date and are further restrained from issuing and enforcing any new executive orders. The Executive Branch is further restrained from taking any action inconsistent with the policies of the previous presidential administration as those policies existed on the Status Quo Date. [...]

Former President Trump shall have the opportunity to submit one response brief not to exceed 10 pages and may attach evidentiary exhibits, to explain any position on why the policy is inconsistence with the policies of his administration and not necessary to the effective continuity of government.

The use of nukes, too, is to be decided by Random Federal Judge.

Under no circumstances shall the Executive Branch deploy any nuclear weapon of the United States or undertake any military invasion without the approval of the Court. The Executive Branch shall establish a secure emergency line to the Court for this purpose

I don't know about you, but to us this definitely sounds like something that might actually happen in reality and not just in the deranged fever dreams of deplorables.

Clearly, Your Honor, we have proven our case. Thank you, XOXO, Paul Davis.

Since Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, this leads to the shocking yet legally airtight conclusion that this Court is now in charge of the United States government until jury trial on the merits after which a new congressional election must be ordered.

Yeah, he just called replacing the entire Constitution with Random Federal Judge and Donald Trump a "shocking yet legally airtight conclusion" with a (presumably) straight face.

Truly, these are some of the greatest legal documents ever filed. Here's they are in full, for your reading enjoyment.

And the proposed order:

[ Motion for TRO / Proposed Order ]

Follow Jamie on Twitter!

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

Wonkette loves you. Please give us money.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Jamie Lynn Crofts
Jamie Lynn Crofts is sick of your bullshit. When she’s not wrangling cats, she’s probably writing about nerdy legal stuff, rocking out at karaoke, or tweeting about god knows what. Jamie would kindly like to remind everyone that it’s perfectly legal to tell Bob Murray to eat shit.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc