Marc Elias of Democracy Docket outlined numerous errors in Sidney Powell’s recent Wisconsin court filings, listed below verbatim from the Court’s response [with my highlights] from Chief Judge of the US District Court Pamela Pepper.

“Just an amazing pattern of lawyers showing up with what they say are the most important cases ever filed and botching the basics. Even the President’s lawyers screwed up the everyday rules for suing people,” Brian Heath of Reuters tweeted.  “These are the mistakes you see when prisoners represent themselves.”

• “The motion indicated that the specific relief the plaintiffs were requesting was laid out in an attached order. … This language was highlighted and in a larger font than the rest of the motion. There was no order attached.”

• “‘This is to certify that I have on this day e-filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Affidavits Under Seal and For In Camera Review with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and that I have delivered the filing to the Defendants by email and FedEx at the following addresses:’.  No addresses were listed below this statement … and no documents were filed under seal. There was no request for in camera review.”  [i.e., they forgot to mail the notice to send notification to the Defendants.]
• “There was no indication that the plaintiffs gave notice to the adverse parties of the morning’s motion, there was no affidavit filed with the motion, the complaint is not verified and there was no certification from counsel about the efforts made to give notice to the adverse parties or why notice should not be required.”
• “This motion indicates that the earlier motion was an inadvertently filed draft and acknowledges that the referenced proposed order had not been attached.”
• “The proposed order asks various injunctions, declarations and orders. It does not ask for a hearing.“
• “Until the plaintiffs notify the court that they have provided notice to the adverse parties, the court will not take any action because the motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 65(b).”  [This means that a hearing cannot be scheduled until Defendants are notified, and then the hearing can only be scheduled 14 days after filing–after the December 14th certification of Electors.]
• “While the caption of the motion includes the word ’emergency’ and the attached proposed order seeks an ‘expedited’ injunction, neither the motion nor the proposed order indicate whether the plaintiffs are asking the court to act more quickly or why. As indicated, the motion does not request a hearing. It does not propose a briefing schedule.”