Legal Law

Twice-fired attorney goes to Twitter to defend his Bonkers authorized theories

Paul Davis (Image via Twitter)

Oh, Paul Davis. I just don’t know how to leave you (write about you). What about the hobbit-loving Capitol Riot lawyer who makes me keep coming back? His tendency to get fired? His prolific submissions of batshit legal theories? How does his butt get hurt when people make fun of him? No, it’s definitely D, all of the above.

After the now former General Counsel was sacked after participating in the January 6 riot, you’ll remember his filing a lawsuit for violating the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to overturn the entire 2020 election do testified violations of civil rights. Yes, in the records below he quoted every nerd’s first love, JRR Tolkien, for the idea that the United States could be ruled by a steward, and we all laughed at it (for good reason). But eventually he was dismissed from some of these plaintiffs for a disagreement over legal strategy, and he filed a second lawsuit which the internet calls In Re Gondor II, but really Bravo v. Pelosi is, and reiterating the grounds for the lawsuit from his first lawsuit.

But Davis’ feelings were hurt again when people (rightly again) began to delve into his TRO application in Gondor II. And just like his (likely) favorite president, Davis took to Twitter to express his anger:

I think it’s great that nobody can find a legal error in the argument. “Oh the remedy is insane” you say? What’s crazy are two unconstitutional branches of government. Anyway, I have work to do, so I’ll let you basement dwellers return to your video games.

– Paul M. Davis (@firedtxlawyer) March 2, 2021

UMMMM “nobody” finds a “mistake in law” in Davis’ reasoning with the exception of the federal judge appointed by DONALD TRUMP. Judge Alan Albright literally said that the grounds for the lawsuit in the original complaint – exactly the same as Davis resorted to in his second complaint – are “unfounded” and provide legal analysis in real life:

Here the court finds that the plaintiff’s claims are unfounded, as the federal law under which they seek relief does not allow them to sue the defendants in order to prevent the defendants from “engaging in acts related to the election of Officials Engaging in Public Office or Public Office “any official government position or position in a guerrilla company relating to American politics and defamation or threat or other prejudice to the life, liberty, or property of plaintiffs. ” You’re welcome. ‘Compl. Plausers have not asserted enough facts to make a claim for relief that is plausible under either the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) or Section 1983.

But it is far from Davis to listen to Judge Albright’s legal advice – the judge says in the clearest possible language that the case is a stinker. But Davis persists and continues to spit utter nonsense on the interwebs:

Let me be clear The problem everyone faces with “Bravo v. Pelosi ”is simply that the means are too great for the mind to grasp. There is nothing legally wrong with that, which is why we will probably not get any relief until after the PI hearing, when everyone will stop laughing.

– Paul M. Davis (@firedtxlawyer) March 2, 2021

I can’t imagine that there will ever be a time when I stop laughing at this nonsense.

Kathryn Rubino is Senior Editor at Above the Law and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best so please connect with her. Feel free to email her tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@ Kathryn1).

Related Articles