COMPLAINT:
John Young, plaintiff,
vs. State of Texas, defendant.
Filed in: Court of Public Opinion, United States
Pursuant to this legal outrage, Plaintiff brings forth the following counts:
That Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and co-plaintiffs engaged the highest court in the land with a frivolous complaint as a political favor to a president who lost the election by 7 million votes and refuses to acknowledge that fact. Materially significant, four years into his disastrous term, this president refuses to acknowledge just about any fact at all.
That by giving him the keys to the state’s civil justice mechanism, Texas and its voters have inflicted Ken Paxton on all U.S. citizens through said frivolous litigation.
That by enlisting 126 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives in this frivolous suit, Paxton, acting as an agent of Defendant and of a desperate out-going president, managed to pull Congress into this mud puddle.
That Paxton has his own legal troubles – having had some of his own employees file complaints against him alleging crimes including bribery.
That while he was suing to overturn our democracy, Paxton was served by FBI agents with a subpoena over those very matters.
That Paxton remains under indictment on a 2015 case alleging securities fraud.
That Paxton and his co-plaintiffs in the horse-hockey suit against democracy were completely fine with election results in the states that awarded their electors to Donald Trump.
That Paxton and his co-plaintiffs instead sought to toss out the results in the presidential race in four key swing states that awarded decisive electors to Joe Biden.
That though Paxton and his co-plaintiffs alleged, without any evidence whatsoever, that the election in Georgia, the one in Michigan, the one in Wisconsin and the one in Pennsylvania each was a hot mess, their suit against democracy failed to acknowledge that in those same states 18 Republicans won races for Congress. Apparently those elections were fair and accurate.
In sum, Paxton and co-plaintiffs sought to disenfranchise 10.4 million voters relative to one elected office alone, based on the whiny-pants tantrum of an incumbent of that office.
Defendant – Texas – has failed to protect the general public, including Plaintiff, from irresponsible litigators like Ken Paxton by electing him twice despite clear evidence of all that Ken Paxton is and will be.
Pertaining to the matter of legal standing, Plaintiff was a resident of Texas for 25 years during which he paid taxes that helped provide for the attorney general’s office and thereby Ken Paxton’s means of filing frivolous lawsuits. Plaintiff also is a citizen of the nation that benefits from the democracy that Paxton and co-plaintiffs seek to dynamite.
Pertaining to any allegation that mine is a frivolous lawsuit unto itself, anyone who sent Ken Paxton to Washington to represent Texas in a suit against democracy can just zip it.
Defendant – Texas — has failed to act responsibly in keeping someone like Ken Paxton in office, therefore making Texas liable for civic negligence. Civil law is based on the “reasonable man” standard. Ken Paxton is not that. Therefore Plaintiff’s suit alleges one count of negligence by Defendant for having him on its payroll.
Though living in another time zone, Plaintiff suffered immense pain and suffering at the sight of Ken Paxton convening with the loser of the 2020 presidential election, seeking to invalidate America’s system of self-government.
For compensatory relief, Plaintiff seeks (1) to have Defendant remove Ken Paxton at the soonest possible opportunity, and (2) to award Plaintiff, from a smoked-meat purveyor of his designation: one hot-link-and-brisket plate, dill pickles, sliced onion, baked beans, cole slaw, potato salad, Texas toast, extra barbecue sauce.
And a tall Dr Pepper.
