The Kraken Cracks Up As Sidney Powell's Last Two Election Suits Implode
Pro Tip: Don't fabricate quotes in court filings. Just don't. Like ... ever.
Check out this passage from US District Judge Pamela Pepper's order dismissing Sidney Powell's Wisconsin Krakenhead lawsuit.
The plaintiff also asserts that the "cutoff for election-related challenges, at least in the Seventh Circuit, appears to be the date that the electors meet, rather than the date of certification." Dkt. No. 72 at 24. He cites Swaffer v. Deininger, No. 08-CV-208, 2008 WL 5246167 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2008). Swaffer is not a Seventh Circuit case, and the court is not aware of a Seventh Circuit case that establishes a "cutoff for election-related challenges." And the plaintiff seems to have made up the "quote" in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer. The plaintiff asserts that these words appear on page 4 of the Swaffer decision: "even though the election has passed, the meeting of electors obviously has not, so plaintiff's claim here is hardly moot." Dkt. No. 72 at 24- 25. The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court's colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words. In fact, Swaffer did not involve a challenge to a presidential election and it did not involve electors.
So, Swaffer v. Deininger, the case the plaintiffs cited as establishing that Wisconsin treats the Electoral College vote as the real "cutoff" for the purposes of litigating a presidential election, has nothing to do with presidential elections, isn't a Seventh Circuit opinion at all — it's from the very trial court where this case is being heard — and the quote cited appears to be entirely fabricated. But other than that, BANG UP JOB!
No, not really. Judge Pepper goes to great pains to describe all the ways this has been a debacle ever since Powell and her merry band of democracy-despising pranksters pratfall-ed their way onto the federal docket 10 days ago with three defective filings in the span of 24 hours. Which is a thing that can happen when you have six attorneys signing the complaint and not a single one of them is barred in the jurisdiction where it's filed.
This is the case where one of the two plaintiffs turned out to have been added without his consent and had to be later removed. Was Judge Pepper impressed that the lawyers in this case managed to misspell their own client's name (and not for the first time) and that they demanded footage from the TCF center, which is in Michigan? No, she was not!
Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the "why." But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks. The court will dismiss the case.
So the Wisconsin Kraken suit has now been tossed for — DRUMROLL, PLEASE — lack of standing; mootness, because Wisconsin's vote has already been certified; being filed in the wrong jurisdiction, as it concerns a question of purely state law; sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, since Congress hasn't specifically granted citizens a right to sue in federal court; laches, since the case was filed a full month after the election; and good, old-fashioned failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because shut up, "vote dilution" is not a thing individual voters can sue for.
Also, who the hell do these people think they are seeking to nullify the votes of Wisconsin's citizens?
He complains that his vote was diluted and that he wants his vote to count. But he asks the court to order the results of the election de-certified and then to order defendant Evers to certify the election for Donald J. Trump. Even if this federal court had the authority to order the governor of the state of Wisconsin to certify the results of a national presidential election for any candidate—and the plaintiff has presented no case, statute or constitutional provision providing the court with that authority—doing so would further invalidate and nullify the plaintiff's vote. The plaintiff wants Donald J. Trump to be certified as the winner of the Wisconsin election as a result of the plaintiff's vote. But what he asks is for Donald J. Trump to be certified the winner as a result of judicial fiat.
Over in Arizona, US District Judge Diane Humetewa has also had it up to here with Sidney Powell's Kraken bullshit.
Obviously, the Court cannot enjoin the transmission of the certified results because they have already been transmitted. (Doc. 40 at 4). Plaintiffs' counsel orally argued that Defendants had the power to de-certify the election under 3 U.S.C. § 6. Nothing in that statute authorizes this Court to de-certify the results. The manner provided to contest elections under Arizona law requires election contest claims to be brought, "in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa County." A.R.S. § 16-672. Therefore, if de-certification were possible, it would only be possible through an action brought in Arizona superior court. In other words, this Court has no power to de-certify the results. But even assuming the Court were able to grant the extraordinary relief requested, ordering Governor Ducey to de-certify the election, such relief would necessarily run afoul of 3 U.S.C. § 6 by ignoring Arizona law. In this instance, the Court cannot allow Plaintiffs to circumvent both federal and Arizona law.
This challenge was booted for most of the same defects as the Wisconsin case: lack of standing, laches, mootness, Eleventh Amendment, FOH with that "vote dilution" business, and failure to state a redressable claim. She also made calamari rings out of the supposed expert witness using statistical analysis to prove that it was UNPOSSIBLE for Biden to get more votes than Trump, ruling that an emergency order requires more than just shouting "fraud" and demanding the court do your bidding.
Advancing several different theories, Plaintiffs allege that Arizona's Secretary of State and Governor conspired with various domestic and international actors to manipulate Arizona's 2020 General Election results allowing Joseph Biden to defeat Donald Trump in the presidential race. The allegations they put forth to support their claims of fraud fail in their particularity and plausibility. Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume. The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections. Because the Complaint is grounded in these fraud allegations, the Complaint shall be dismissed.
Powell's still trying to get two cases re-heard on appeal, and ... well, good luck to her! At the end of the day, these idiotic Kraken cases will disappear like Rudy toot — they're malodorous and embarrassing, but ultimately waft away into a pathetic nothing.
Follow Liz Dye on Twitter RIGHT HERE!
Please click here to support your Wonkette. And if you're ordering your quarantine goods on Amazon, this is the link to do it.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore with her wonderful husband and a houseful of teenagers. When she isn't being mad about a thing on the internet, she's hiding in plain sight in the carpool line. She's the one wearing yoga pants glaring at her phone.