read it again, and read anderson - we HAVE NOT HEARD dissents on those issues, because the minority simply said "we cannot opine on that, because it is outside the subject matter of this case". A lot of that is 'between the lines' on my petition, because the petition does NOT contest Anderson, it simply says that it is a different set of facts, and makes arguments based on my case only.
read it again, and read anderson - we HAVE NOT HEARD dissents on those issues, because the minority simply said "we cannot opine on that, because it is outside the subject matter of this case". A lot of that is 'between the lines' on my petition, because the petition does NOT contest Anderson, it simply says that it is a different set of facts, and makes arguments based on my case only.
All I can say is that the Appellate Brief you wrote is confusingly written, and seems very confused.
The remedy you seem to be pursuing- forced recusal of SCOTUS justices is a pipe dream.
The cert petition at least is short, but it is still completely unclear about what it is you want.
And your further analysis of Trump v Anderson as posted in the reply to me down thread, really really doesn’t pass muster.
I wish you well in your life. I am a believer in encouraging non-lawyers to understand the processes of law, but that is absolutely not the same as encouraging them to dive into the perilous waters of litigation without adequate legal training. I note a reference in the appellate brief to vexatious litigation, and that Justice Alito was served in his pyjamas.
I fear that, had I discouraged you from taking the course you seem determined upon, before you embarked, you would not have taken such well intended advice. Despite a foreboding that you are immune to good advice - I give it now :
Please Stop What You Are Doing, no good will come of it, please find some other outlet for your energies and enthusiasms.
I could make a point by point rebuttal of the argument you post below. But I fear that might only feed what has become a misdirected focus.
I genuinely wish you well, but legal sparring is not the way to help you recover balance and focus.
But yes, if you have substantive points to make, I would like to hear them. That is literally the only way I will be talked out of it.
But I appreciate your analysis of my life balance. I have been married for 25 yrs, I have 2 kids, and a successful career behind me, I personally think my life balance is just fine. Doing what you believe in, and think is important, without any hopes of compensation for it, IS balance. And I certainly wish you the same.
Justice Alito was served at home, by a professional server, because he refused service at the court. That he was wearing pajamas, is not my fault. But again, you are referencing a completely different case, not this one. But since you ask, I got a call from the court (on that case) asking me to cancel service to the rest, and gave me an email address with the general counsel for the court I could send service electronically to. Which I did.
But since you are a lawyer, why aren't YOU bringing such cases? Because you're afraid of the court limiting your ability to practice? They have broken the law here, we just supposed to let that go uncontested? Because we're not professionals? We expect soldiers to go onto a battlefield to fight for our freedoms, knowing they might DIE on the battlefield, and lawyers won't go to Scotus because they might lose? Or might have their license jeopardized? If a soldier did that in war, they would be shot.
No good will come of this, is not a reason to not try. Lawyers who do this, is the reason we have judges making law. So I have to disagree. We'll see whether good comes of it or not. I do have a right to try, absent lawyers who are willing to.
for an opinion to be binding on the lower court, ALL 9 judges must have acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction by entering opinions, here we have a portion of anderson that only has 5. All 9 judges, have to agree that the threshold issues have been met (articleIII sec1), and do so by entering an opinion. They have not. Anderson simply does not apply.
I simply argue that the lower court has overextended anderson's application to this case.
a lot of this depends, on my assumption that the minority is DYING to make those counter arguments, and has been effectively muzzled, the petition gives them the chance to do it (at least behind closed doors) of the comittee mtg on the 24th.
read it again, and read anderson - we HAVE NOT HEARD dissents on those issues, because the minority simply said "we cannot opine on that, because it is outside the subject matter of this case". A lot of that is 'between the lines' on my petition, because the petition does NOT contest Anderson, it simply says that it is a different set of facts, and makes arguments based on my case only.
All I can say is that the Appellate Brief you wrote is confusingly written, and seems very confused.
The remedy you seem to be pursuing- forced recusal of SCOTUS justices is a pipe dream.
The cert petition at least is short, but it is still completely unclear about what it is you want.
And your further analysis of Trump v Anderson as posted in the reply to me down thread, really really doesn’t pass muster.
I wish you well in your life. I am a believer in encouraging non-lawyers to understand the processes of law, but that is absolutely not the same as encouraging them to dive into the perilous waters of litigation without adequate legal training. I note a reference in the appellate brief to vexatious litigation, and that Justice Alito was served in his pyjamas.
I fear that, had I discouraged you from taking the course you seem determined upon, before you embarked, you would not have taken such well intended advice. Despite a foreboding that you are immune to good advice - I give it now :
Please Stop What You Are Doing, no good will come of it, please find some other outlet for your energies and enthusiasms.
I could make a point by point rebuttal of the argument you post below. But I fear that might only feed what has become a misdirected focus.
I genuinely wish you well, but legal sparring is not the way to help you recover balance and focus.
But yes, if you have substantive points to make, I would like to hear them. That is literally the only way I will be talked out of it.
But I appreciate your analysis of my life balance. I have been married for 25 yrs, I have 2 kids, and a successful career behind me, I personally think my life balance is just fine. Doing what you believe in, and think is important, without any hopes of compensation for it, IS balance. And I certainly wish you the same.
Justice Alito was served at home, by a professional server, because he refused service at the court. That he was wearing pajamas, is not my fault. But again, you are referencing a completely different case, not this one. But since you ask, I got a call from the court (on that case) asking me to cancel service to the rest, and gave me an email address with the general counsel for the court I could send service electronically to. Which I did.
But since you are a lawyer, why aren't YOU bringing such cases? Because you're afraid of the court limiting your ability to practice? They have broken the law here, we just supposed to let that go uncontested? Because we're not professionals? We expect soldiers to go onto a battlefield to fight for our freedoms, knowing they might DIE on the battlefield, and lawyers won't go to Scotus because they might lose? Or might have their license jeopardized? If a soldier did that in war, they would be shot.
No good will come of this, is not a reason to not try. Lawyers who do this, is the reason we have judges making law. So I have to disagree. We'll see whether good comes of it or not. I do have a right to try, absent lawyers who are willing to.
yes, well, I am not a lawyer, but I'm getting better at this every day though ;-)
however the questions that I ask at scotus are much narrower, and the remedy I ask for is simply a remand to district court for finding of fact.
for an opinion to be binding on the lower court, ALL 9 judges must have acknowledged subject matter jurisdiction by entering opinions, here we have a portion of anderson that only has 5. All 9 judges, have to agree that the threshold issues have been met (articleIII sec1), and do so by entering an opinion. They have not. Anderson simply does not apply.
I simply argue that the lower court has overextended anderson's application to this case.
a lot of this depends, on my assumption that the minority is DYING to make those counter arguments, and has been effectively muzzled, the petition gives them the chance to do it (at least behind closed doors) of the comittee mtg on the 24th.