Tuesday, September 3, 2019

[U] Excellent ACLU Motion Practice Snark -- "Yes, Once Again(!)" -- In Flores Support Papers, Against Trump.


UPDATED: The able Judge Gee has already ruled, thus [and as is not infrequently true, all the action is in a terse, acidic footnote]: "While the Court is not pleased that [Trump] Defendants failed to comply with the notice requirements in Local Rule 7-19 and the Court’s Initial Standing Order regarding ex parte applications, the Court exercises its discretion to allow the filing due to the relatedness of the issues and the lack of prejudice to Plaintiffs. Future non-compliance with the Local Rules or Standing Order shall result in the summary denial of the motion and/or application. . . ." Probably wise -- with a warning. End, update.

We would be remiss in our duties, if we did not note that the ACLU is spot-on correct here.

Team Trump is. . . flat out wrong on the law [again]. And so the Flores team is having some well-earned fun, at the government's considerable expense. Do read all 15 pages, but here is the best of it, bolded:

. . . .Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ ex parte application (Doc. #631) to file a 60-page brief supplementing their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. #516) to enforce the Flores settlement agreement (“Settlement”) and supporting an independent motion to terminate the Settlement (Doc. 639) based on -- yes, once again -- “changed circumstances.” Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ request for an extended page limit, order Defendants to re-file their supplemental brief as a standalone filing, and deny Defendants’ motion to terminate sua sponte for the reasons discussed below.

. . [T]he only time-sensitive issue now before the Court is whether the Final Rule is or is not consistent with the Settlement. As reflected in the Court’s Order of November 21, that question -- and that question alone -- must be resolved with 45 days following publication of the Final Rule. In contrast, none of Defendants’ alternative grounds for terminating the Settlement is subject to the 45-day deadline, nor, indeed, to any deadline at all. . . .


These Trump-y folks are clearly from the remedial "special" short-bus section of the Liberty U. law graduating classes, now in action.

Onward, on a warm but cloudy Tuesday afternoon, here. Grinning -- as ever, grinning.

नमस्ते

No comments: