Educated Prediction: this has something to do with the FISA Court. Or Prez has already filed a case under seal with SCOTUS and made a fat in camera production of evidence.

Preach.

Lawyer here, and pretty well versed in this material. I have absolutely no clue what these Twitterati are talking about. Even if the Court accepted the case, they’d toss it again on standing. Better they not accept the case and tell us why within 72 hours rather than accepting the case and fucking us in 2 weeks. Now we (Lion Ted and the fleet of attorneys behind him that drafted all that material) can regroup and fight elsewhere.

I think so. They have a unique interest that to vindicate under the Electors Clause that's separate and distinct from Texas's interest.

Attorney here. This is an exception brief. I'm not as fearful of the standing issues now.

You've got to ask for "leave of court" to file an amicus brief. But literally anyone can ask for leave, and then you just attach your proposed amicus brief as an exhibit. Now, the Court's 99.99% unlikely to grant the motion, but it's still in the record for all of eternity.

Yes. Bank on a hearing with 2 to 3 business days.

Pacer is the federal lawsuit portal. Short for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.

immediate next step -- expect motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). i haven't pulled the PACER filings, but the filing of a TRO is noted at paragraph 68 of the Georgia complaint. a TRO means a quick hearing, otherwise you're looking at 21 days before the defendants have to file a responsive pleading.

an "emergency order" is also noted in the Michigan complaint at paragraphs 207 and 209. that's not a thing in the federal rules of civil procedure, so i suspect they mean a TRO there too.

It's just sloppy editing. I suspect they're just in an incredible rush to get things out that draftsmanship be damned. Speed > pretty.

You can amend your complaint once as a matter of right within 21 days anyway under the federal rules. So I suspect they have some nerd cleaning this thing up in the background. Wouldn't doubt we see a cleaner version soon enough.

Lawyer here. Big flag at paragraph 135. Sidney cites the "take care" clause of Pennsylvania's constitution instead of Georgia's .

I thought it may have just been a typo. But that's the correct Pennsylvania citation. Georgia has a "take care" clause too, but it's in their Article V, not Article IV.

The most reasonable explanation: she's got copy-and-paste job going on. The Pennsylvania lawsuit is already drafted.

i'm a lawyer. the typos make this really tough to read. i just wanna bust out a red pen like a high school english teacher.

but does it matter in the grand scheme of things? no.

roadrash, i assume you're a lawyer too.

i keep refreshing NDGA Pacer, restricted to cases filed today. still nothing. can't wait for Roscoe Davis to post.

Don't hold me to my impromptu legal opinion. but the pardon is a "favorable termination" of the judicial proceeding, so any Bivens action (under a "malicious prosecution" theory otherwise) accrued today.

I had theorized that Flynn is the "kraken", but no way Sidney files a lawsuit today -- you never file this quick, and civil discover takes too damn long anyway for it to be of any utility for the election.

But the pardon does automatically terminate the gag order on Flynn (as I don't see where the judge ever lifted it), so now Flynn can say whatever the hell he wants.

Just burned through a few bucks. She hasn't filed anything in NDGA, MDGA, or SDGA. Ran "Raffensperger" name too in the national portal suspecting that he's likely to be a defendant, but no dice.

yep, assuming it's going to be a federal action.

Lawyer here. I haven't seen whether it's going to be in federal court or state court. If federal, she can file at any time since it's all online filing. Doesn't need to be prior to 5pm EST like most state court would require.

Spot on.