How President Trump lost Wisconsin and possibly the Presidency

Two esoteric legal doctrines--pro hac vice and laches--and the advocacy skills of Perkins Coie Washington lawyer--John M. Devaney--saw the Wisconsin Court of Appeal sink President Trump's hopes of overturning the election result in Wisconsin by a narrow 4-3 margin.  For Donald J. Trump, Michael R Pence and Donald J Trump for President Inc. (Plaintiffs-Appellants):

" a brief was filed by James R. Troupis and Troupis Law Office, Cross Plains, and R. George Burnett and Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry S.C., Green Bay. Oral argument was presented by James R. Troupis."

---

For Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris--two of the eight Defendants-Respondents: 

"a brief was filed by Matthew W. O'Neill and Fox, O'Neill & Shannon, S.C., Milwaukee, Charles G. Curtis, Jr., Michelle M. Umberger, Will M. Conley and Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, and John M. Devaney (pro hac vice) and Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, D.C. Oral argument presented by John M. Devaney."

Pro hac vice (Latin) means:  "for this occasion"--allowing a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.  Flying Devaney into the case from Washington proved a smart legal manoeuvre that was Trump's downfall.  Hagedorn J--delivering the majority decision of the Court of Appeal--summarised Devaney's submission on behalf of Biden and Harris:

"that a multitude of legal doctrines—— including laches, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, due process, and equal protection——bar the [Trump] Campaign from receiving its requested relief". 

If Devaney's submission was successful--Trump would be barred from challenging the legality of three of four categories of ballots Trump had identified:

• Those cast early and in-person 
• Those collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and
• Those where clerks had filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.

---

---

Hagedorn J elaborated:

 "Laches is founded on the notion that equity aids the vigilant, and not those who sleep on their rights to the detriment of the opposing party." State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson, 2019 WI 110, ¶14, 389 Wis. 2d 516, 936 N.W.2d 587. Application of laches is within the court's discretion upon a showing by the party raising the claim of unreasonable delay, lack of knowledge the claim would be raised, and prejudice. Id., ¶15"

Devaney convinced four of the seven judges to exercise the Court's discretion and apply the doctrine of laches to prevent Trump's legal team challenging the legality of those three categories of ballots--which if successful--would have changed the Wisconsin result. Chief Justice Roggensack speaking for the three minority judges--was left to lament:

"A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast."

Perkins Coie had represented Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee when engaging Fusion GPS in April 2016 to perform a variety of research services into the then Presidential candidate Donald Trump--resulting in former British spy Anthony Steele--using his Russian sub-sources--compiling the discredited and unreliable Steele Dossier.  The FBI used the Steele Dossier to obtain two FISA warrants in October 2016 and January 2017--enabling the FBI to spy on an American citizen--Carter Page--the Trump 2016 Campaign Committee and the Trump Presidential Transition Team.   Then-President Obama and Vice-President Biden have never explained why the FBI was authorised to pursue these two extraordinary FISA applications.  President Trump will not be sending Perkins Coie a Christmas card. 

---