> but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.
I don't know, they do have some of the greatest hits from those lawsuits:
* Let's ask the court to prevent things that have already happened (it wants to restrain AWS from cutting off service to Parler, but it filed the suit after that happened).
* File exhibits that are atrociously unusable (the PDF of the service agreement clearly cuts out several lines of text, although I think this was unintentional).
* Provide a single paragraph of argument to address the single claim that actually gives your claim federal jurisdiction at all.
* Clearly incapable of reading contract plain text (in this case). The contract claims are likely to fail since AWS has a right to terminate it unilaterally (which they don't address in their filing all), but it's moot anyways because binding arbitration clause means the court has no right to hear it.
* Evidence for their claim boils down to "there's no other possible reason anyone would want to shut us down than CONSPIRACY!"
* Urgency is requested, but there's no motions to actually grant urgent relief (e.g., an emergency filing or motion for expedited relief).
* Plaintiff fails to spell its own name correctly in a few cases (admittedly, only one here).
I don't know, they do have some of the greatest hits from those lawsuits:
* Let's ask the court to prevent things that have already happened (it wants to restrain AWS from cutting off service to Parler, but it filed the suit after that happened).
* File exhibits that are atrociously unusable (the PDF of the service agreement clearly cuts out several lines of text, although I think this was unintentional).
* Provide a single paragraph of argument to address the single claim that actually gives your claim federal jurisdiction at all.
* Clearly incapable of reading contract plain text (in this case). The contract claims are likely to fail since AWS has a right to terminate it unilaterally (which they don't address in their filing all), but it's moot anyways because binding arbitration clause means the court has no right to hear it.
* Evidence for their claim boils down to "there's no other possible reason anyone would want to shut us down than CONSPIRACY!"
* Urgency is requested, but there's no motions to actually grant urgent relief (e.g., an emergency filing or motion for expedited relief).
* Plaintiff fails to spell its own name correctly in a few cases (admittedly, only one here).