[UPDATED: Live Oral Argument] Sarah Fabian, For Trump -- Will Get Blasted (Again!) Tomorrow, In The Ninth Circuit -- Re Her Latest Flores Appeal

UPDATED 09.30.20 @ 6:30 PM EDT: Sarah Fabian sent an underling to the oral argument. As I listen in, I have to say, this young man is going to lose. The panel is clearly indicating it likely does not have jurisdiction, since the law of the case has already foreclosed this appeal, via a prior decision inside these same chambers. But to the extent they reach the merits, the panel is uniform in suggesting that Team Trump is affirmatively hampering contact among family members, and among families and their retained counsel. Trump's lawyer is arguing that the Flores agreement doesn't allow for or require that in a Title 42 setting.

This is simply. . . preposterous. DHS is deciding these matters, and it is no defense to say that DHS (of its own volition) may remove children from the protection of the Flores agreement (72 hours maximum hold, but then children must go to a licensed facility) with a stroke of a pen, by simply calling them subject to Title 42. A concept that finds no support anywhere in any of the Flores documents, since 1985 -- to this day. We are skating close to the line of sanction-able advocacy. I have a dinner commitment, so I am not going to listen to the end -- but Trump is definitively going to lose here. Again. End update.

Tomorrow, Sarah Fabian will argue again about matters that were already decided against her client -- in this same case -- in the same Ninth Circuit. This "will not end well" for her, sez Condor.

Overnight, the Ninth Circuit panel told her, by order, to be ready to explain why she thinks the august court even has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The specific prior case the Ninth Circuit order references, is here -- and the operative bit, is below:

. . . .Rather than modifying the Agreement, the district court appropriately interpreted it as consistent with both the INA and our prior interpretation of the Agreement. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this claim. . . .

Finally, the government argues that the district court erred in concluding that the Agreement prohibits the government from detaining minors in secure, unlicensed family detention centers. The district court addressed this issue directly in its July 2015 order. Although the government appealed that order, it did not on appeal challenge the district court's holding on this issue. See Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d at 901. "[A] party cannot offer up successively different legal or factual theories that could have been presented in a prior request for review." Sec. Inv'r Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 74 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 1996).

The issue belatedly raised in this appeal is not properly before us.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED. . . .

In this lawyer's opinion, Ms. Fabian is. . . rapidly approaching the bright red line where she could be labeled a "vexatious litigant" in the Ninth Circuit, and subject to disciplinary proceedings. She continues to endanger vulnerable children's very lives. . . with her nonsense -- and repetitive -- appeals.

नमस्ते