Fogbow

Chilidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:44 pm he filed an appeal of the $5 million lost bet at the last minute on Monday.

interestingly, he has a new lawyer.

i don’t think he paid the old one.

No. 23-950
Title: Michael J. Lindell, et al., Petitioners
v.
United States, et al.
Docketed: February 29, 2024
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case Numbers: (22-3510)
Decision Date: September 22, 2023
Rehearing Denied: November 27, 2023

Date Proceedings and Orders
Feb 26 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 1, 2024)
PetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Mar 13 2024 Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
Main Document
Mar 20 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.

bob wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:58 pm In the event Lindell is referring to the cert. petition that he bankrolled for Kari Lake, Maricopa County waived its response, and that petition has been deadlifted distributed for the April 19 conference.

Jan 03 2024 Application (23A622) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 14, 2024 to February 15, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Jan 05 2024 Application (23A622) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 15, 2024.

Feb 01 2024 Application (23A622) to extend further the time from February 15, 2024 to March 14, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Written Request
Feb 05 2024 Application (23A622) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 14, 2024.

Mar 14 2024 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2024)

Mar 20 2024 Motion to expedite considerarion filed by petitioner Kari Lake, et al.

Mar 27 2024 Waiver of right of respondent Pima County Board of Supervisors to respond filed.

Mar 27 2024 Waiver of right of respondent Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to respond filed.

Apr 02 2024 Supplemental Brief of Kari Lake, et al. submitted.

Apr 03 2024 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.

northland10 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:08 pm

Edit: Answered my own question by reading the rules which I was too lazy to do earlier.

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling. A supplemental brief shall be restricted to new matter and shall follow, insofar as applicable, the form for a brief in opposition prescribed by this Rule. Forty copies shall be fled, except that a party proceeding in formal pauperis under Rule 39, including an inmate of an institution, shall file the number of copies required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The supplemental brief shall be served as required by Rule 29.

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling.*

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 15.8, petitioners submit this supplemental brief regarding the ethical and legal implications of the respondents’ waiver of a brief in opposition (“BIO”) and their failure to respond to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite. Although petitioners reserve the right to move for monetary or nonmonetary sanctions under Rule 8.2, this supplemental brief focuses on the ethical and procedural issues related to respondents’ waiver of their BIOs.

* * *

Specifically, respondents have a duty to correct prior false material evidence presented to the lower courts, on which those courts relied to find petitioners’ injuries too speculative for Article III.

bob wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:33 pm

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 15.8, petitioners submit this supplemental brief regarding the ethical and legal implications of the respondents’ waiver of a brief in opposition (“BIO”) and their failure to respond to petitioners’ Motion to Expedite. Although petitioners reserve the right to move for monetary or nonmonetary sanctions under Rule 8.2, this supplemental brief focuses on the ethical and procedural issues related to respondents’ waiver of their BIOs.

* * *

Specifically, respondents have a duty to correct prior false material evidence presented to the lower courts, on which those courts relied to find petitioners’ injuries too speculative for Article III.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:59 pm It looks like they are trying to claim that defendamts have a duty to correct the record because she allegedly found new evidence in her favor (she didn't, and the information she is relying on was publicly available during or before the discovery phase) - failure to do so is in her view worthy of sanctions.

noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:04 pmHowever, they seem to be complaining about the defendants not filing a Brief In Opposition (BIO). Wouldn't a BIO only be required in response to something that the plaintiff filed? And wouldn't it only be required if the defendant was, indeed, opposed to the filing?

Or, am I connecting the wrong dots?

bob wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:33 pm SCOTUS:

Any party may file a supplemental brief at any time while a petition for a writ of certiorari is pending, calling attention to new cases, new legislation, or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party’s last fling.*

* Helluva typo!

Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski wrote: Mike Lindell says that Democrats would’ve won Texas in 2020 but AG Ken Paxton got 2 million votes thrown out.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 8:45 pm

Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski wrote: Mike Lindell says that Democrats would’ve won Texas in 2020 but AG Ken Paxton got 2 million votes thrown out.