Slapping down one of the so-called “Kraken” cases pushed by pro-Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, a federal judge in Michigan cut off one of the arms of their efforts to overturn battleground elections.
“Plaintiffs ask this court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters,” U.S. District Judge Linda Parker wrote. “This, the Court cannot, and will not, do.”
“The People have spoken,” she added, entering the ruling hours after midnight Monday morning.
Although a complete evisceration of the lawsuit’s legal theories and evidence, the ruling addresses only one of its requests: denying an injunction purporting to decertify the election.
At the heart of their lawsuit—filed in the names of six Michigan residents, led by Timothy King—was an idea that the judge found antagonistic to the nation’s democratic experiment.
“The right to vote is among the most sacred rights of our democracy and, in turn, uniquely defines us as Americans,” her 36-page opinion begins. “The struggle to achieve the right to vote is one that has been both hard fought and cherished throughout our country’s history. Local, state, and federal elections give voice to this right through the ballot. And elections that count each vote celebrate and secure this cherished right.”
To use Powell’s analogy of her legal offensive to a “Kraken”—a mythical, octopus-like sea creature—Judge Parker cut off one arm of a beast which includes lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin, all states that have certified their election results in favor of President-elect Joe Biden.
“This case represents well the phrase: ‘this ship has sailed,'” the ruling states.
In addition to being moot, the lawsuit was also filed too late, making their complaint barred by a concept of judicial fairness known as “laches.”
“Plaintiffs could have lodged their constitutional challenges much sooner than they did, and certainly not three weeks after Election Day and one week after certification of almost three million votes,” Judge Parker wrote.
As for the supposed fraud claims, the judge noted they are “an amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation that such alterations were possible,” emphasizing that last word in original.
“With nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden, plaintiffs’ equal protection claim fails,” the ruling states.
After identifying so many defects in the lawsuit, Judge Parker suggested that the goal of the pro-Trump attorneys was not to win but to destabilize democracy in the United States.
“For these reasons, the court finds that Plaintiffs are far from likely to succeed in this matter,” she notes. “In fact, this lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.”
Wood and Powell did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment.
Detroit’s attorney David Fink said in an email that the “frivolous” suit deserves sanctions.
“It’s a good day for democracy; not such a good day for frivolous Republican lawsuits,” Fink wrote.
“Once again a challenge to our vote count based upon groundless conspiracy theories has been rejected in court,” he said. “Every judge who has reviewed these claims brought by Donald Trump and his allies has found them for what they are—frivolous lawsuits intended to undermine faith in our democracy. It’s time for the purveyors of these dangerous lies to be sanctioned by the courts.”
Read the 36-page ruling below:
[Image via YouTube screengrab]
Follow Law&Crime:
