“Moot court” is an extracurricular activity law students hold to practice their skills at writing briefs and making oral arguments. In this instance, the phrase “moot” derives from the Anglo-Saxon term gmot, a meeting of prominent persons (the same root as the Harry Potter wizarding world word “Wizengamot”). Here I use “moot” in its other sense, “of little of no practical value, merely theoretical.”
Alabama Circuit Court Judge Eugene W. Reese has granted a 15-minute hearing on December 6 to hear motions in the case of McInnish v. Chapman (the latter Alabama’s Secretary of State). Attempts to keep Barack Obama off the Alabama ballot would seem doubly moot now that the election is over and Obama didn’t get any electoral votes from Alabama anyway. There is no actual controversy, nor can an Alabama Circuit Court provide any relief requested by the Plaintiffs and their attorney Larry Klayman. It’s moot.
It’s a perfect opportunity for Klayman to continue his grifting. A WND article will appear about how this will be a “game changer.”
I agree. What I’d like to know, then, is why the judge agreed to give Klayman a platform to continue his dishonesty?