Legal experts lambaste 'Kraken' lawyers for attempting to blame filing error on SCOTUS clerk

Legal experts and law observers were left flabbergasted by Sidney Powell and her "Kraken" legal team's latest attempt to invalidate the results of the presidential election. Although the Electoral College has affirmed President-elect Joe Biden's win, Powell and her associates are still arguing that the results in four battleground states were "unconstitutional," according to Law & Crime.

Earlier this week, Powell filed a motion requesting lawsuits in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin be consolidated. However, the U.S. Supreme Court only has cases relative to Georgia and Michigan on its docket because the Arizona and Wisconsin cases have already been tossed out.

"The Arizona and Wisconsin Petitions were electronically filed and hand-delivered to the Court on December 12. Nonetheless, on December 17, the Clerk's office marked both 'Rejected' on the Court's ECF database," the motion stated. "When inquiry was made about this notation, undersigned counsel was informed that a Clerk's Office analyst had disallowed them, for reasons unspecified, without participation by any Justice of the Court. Counsel was informed that an explanation would be provided via U.S. Mail."

However, the glaring "errors, procedural mistakes, and falsehoods" quickly caught the attention of legal experts who wasted no time chiming in. Attorney Akiva Cohen took to Twitter with a string of more than 10 tweets highlighting various errors within the court documents.

Cohen also highlighted the most conspicuous mistakes tweeting that "cases have to *exist* in order to be consolidated, and the cases don't exist until they're docketed," adding, "They didn't bother submitting copies of the Petitions, so the court couldn't review them and say "hey, let's consider these together" even if it wanted to."

To make matters worse, Powell continued with an attempt to blame the U.S. Supreme Court clerk for their rejected cases.

"We find this (presumably innocent) lapse atypical of the proud traditions in the Office of the Supreme Court Clerk. More important, we are confident that deficiencies in the Arizona and Wisconsin Petitions, if there be any, are curable," Powell said. "We respectfully request that the Court deem those submissions filed nunc pro tunc and consolidate them, once filed, with the Michigan and Georgia Petitions."

The attempt quickly drew disdain from more legal experts. In fact, federal civil and criminal appellate attorney Matthew Stiegler was shocked by what he read saying, "I cannot express how relieved I am that such evil is presented with such stupidity."

Brad Heath, a crime and justice reporter for Reuters, flatly disapproved of the brief as he argued that it simply "doesn't make sense."

"The brief doesn't argue implied consent - it just says legislators endorsed Trump slates. It doesn't make sense," Heath tweeted. "The legislature was out of session in Georgia. How does its failing to stop somebody from doing something when it is not even in session constitute consent?"

In response to Powell's false claim about the "competing slate of electors" arguing: "There are electors who cast real electoral votes, and there are self-appointed a**clowns who played 'grown-up person dress-up' on the same day."

With each failed attempt at overturning the election results, Trump's campaign legal team is taken less seriously.