Read on Twitter
Good Afternoon, Krakenologists - GA Appeal Thread
This isn't a news thread, but I thought it would be interesting to take a quick look through GA's response to the 11th Circuit's jurisdictional questions.
In part, that's because I just skimmed it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LuIeWg60Xldu22-g-JKjWo1wet7gk2Gg/view?usp=sharing
This isn't a news thread, but I thought it would be interesting to take a quick look through GA's response to the 11th Circuit's jurisdictional questions.
In part, that's because I just skimmed it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LuIeWg60Xldu22-g-JKjWo1wet7gk2Gg/view?usp=sharing
The State of Georgia in general and the AG's office lawyers in particular appear to be OFFICIALLY OVER these cases. They are clearly pissed off, they are majorly pissed off, and, as we'll see, they are ecumenically pissed off.
And I don't blame them in the least.
It's a much shorter filing than the 24 pages would indicate - 6 full pages are the list of names of parties and the table of contents.
For the nonlawyers:
The 11th Circuit took one look at the cray-cray that Sidney was dropping on their desks and immediately found a really good reason that this shouldn't be their problem. They asked the parties to brief that issue. This is GA's response to that request.
The 11th Circuit took one look at the cray-cray that Sidney was dropping on their desks and immediately found a really good reason that this shouldn't be their problem. They asked the parties to brief that issue. This is GA's response to that request.
Excellent use of scare quotes in the intro sentence, and very well done using the first sentence to highlight just how totally crazy the whole case is. That does a good job, I think, getting the court's attention where they want it.
OK, maybe that overstated it. It doesn't really highlight the totality of the insanity - this thing is a Matryoshka doll of chiropteran excrement - but it at least gives the general sense of what's going on here.
Having delicately and with hazmat apparel opened the first doll, they gingerly reach in and extract the second layer for the court:
"Hey, judges, these nimrods are trying to appeal a thing they won. Please make it stop."
"Hey, judges, these nimrods are trying to appeal a thing they won. Please make it stop."
Seriously, the whole intro was very well done, especially with the time available and their workload. Three sentences that captured everything critical and told the court exactly what they want.
This statement of the case captures the most general gist of what's going on.
And now we get to the meat. The phrase "convoluted history" is a bit ominous, and they immediately go on to express, in plain terms, some of their considerable displeasure with Judge Batten's handling of their Sunday.
That's not a thing that's always advisable.
That's not a thing that's always advisable.
It's not something that will have any effect on the outcome, and I understand why it's here. It highlights just how much Plaintiffs won, just how little they should have won, and sets the stage for the cross-appeal of the TRO that was issued.
But it does poke the bear a bit.
But it does poke the bear a bit.
And they are clearly and justifiably annoyed with what happened to them on Sunday. Judge Batten's approach, although understandable and practical, was CLEARLY not entirely consistent with governing law. And these lawyers were the ones paying the bulk of the price for that.
No matter how good the cause, giving 27 minutes warning to counsel for defendants who have not formally been given notice is simply massively unfair. I understand the irritation.
For the nonlawyers and doomscrollers: please do NOT take this as an indication that I think Judge Batten was doing anything out of bias toward the plaintiffs' case. I don't. I stand by what I said when I read the transcript.
I think this is a judge who was hyper-focused only on the practicalities of ensuring that evidence would be preserved and that there wouldn't be "we could have won but we couldn't get the evidence" complaints down the line.
I saw no sign of partisan bias.
Moving on...
I saw no sign of partisan bias.
Moving on...
Defendants are absolutely correct that the TRO should not have issued under the governing law - these are very very hard arguments to counter.
Because they're right.
Because they're right.
Having vented their spleen with the TRO itself, the defendants turn their attention to Lin pointing out that this is absolutely the same strategy he's employing in his own case.
I'd note that while I don't expect the follow-through, this paragraph works to show why sanctions would be appropriate under 28 USC § 1927, which allows sanctions to be issued where proceedings are "vexatiously multiplied."
They're really not pulling punches. This is a flat accusation of bad faith litigation practices.
I've got to give Lin credit. If nothing else, he's efficient. It took Orly Taitz a solid six months of hard work to piss off the Hawaii AG's office as badly as Lin's managed in just 2 weeks.
"And, again, judges, appealing things you win isn't what appeals courts are there for, so please yeet these clowns out of here - we'll borrow the Human Cannonball's big gun if you want - so we can get their garbage dismissed and catch up on a 2-month sleep deficit?"
Not gonna check but I'll be stunned if they didn't just cut and paste - the right way, not the Sidney way - this from their filing responding to the same jurisdictional question in Lin's case.
Yeah, still not happy lawyers.
I know that some AGs offices have policies against seeking sanctions when the state is the defendant in a civil case. But I wouldn't be shocked to see a sanctions motion in this case, even if they have to get a waiver from the boss to seek them.
I know that some AGs offices have policies against seeking sanctions when the state is the defendant in a civil case. But I wouldn't be shocked to see a sanctions motion in this case, even if they have to get a waiver from the boss to seek them.
They're doing a great deal here to continue to highlight the issues with the TRO itself. They may be hoping that the 11th mentions the issues when they punt the case back to the District.
These are seriously, seriously pissed-off lawyers. And definitely pissed off at all of it.
And they're very pissed off at absolutely everyone.
This is, I think, the kind of filing you get when everyone in the entire office is so pissed off that there's nobody left to tone things down. That's not necessarily a great thing. Again, not one likely to matter. But not fantastic.
This section is well-done, technical, and I'm going to skip the rest.
For the lawyers: well-drafted and everything you'd expect to see is there.
For the non-lawyers: they're going through a checklist they have to go through to show why Sidney and Lin are dumb today.
For the lawyers: well-drafted and everything you'd expect to see is there.
For the non-lawyers: they're going through a checklist they have to go through to show why Sidney and Lin are dumb today.
Also well done. Highlights the insanity of the complaint as well as the request for injunction, while simultaneously explaining why the court shouldn't grant discretionary relief.
For the non-lawyers: Sidney and Lin are trying to use the TRO appeal as an excuse to argue their whole case on appeal right now even though it wasn't heard below. You can't do that. The defendants are calling them out for trying.
And doing a good job here, and on the next page, to explain why the stuff that was actually discussed at the TRO hearing doesn't support an appeal right now.
And that wraps it up.
Thoughts:
1: The only doubt in my mind about what happens with this appeal is whether the 11th Circuit discusses the issues with the grant of the TRO when they kick this case back to the District Court. There's clearly no jurisdiction for the appeal.
1: The only doubt in my mind about what happens with this appeal is whether the 11th Circuit discusses the issues with the grant of the TRO when they kick this case back to the District Court. There's clearly no jurisdiction for the appeal.
2: Anger, even when warranted, can get in the way of clarity. This is one of the reasons lawyers are discouraged from representing themselves.
That said, there's very little chance that it could hurt them in a case like this.
That said, there's very little chance that it could hurt them in a case like this.
3: Overall, a good filing. And the 11th Circuit is very very likely to find it has no jurisdiction over this appeal.
