Climate United out here pointedly demonstrating that the government is operating in such profound bad faith that it may no longer be reasonable to extend them professional courtesy storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... - ThreadSky

kathryntewson.bsky.social • 57 days ago

Climate United out here pointedly demonstrating that the government is operating in such profound bad faith that it may no longer be reasonable to extend them professional courtesy https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278196/gov.uscourts.dcd.278196.17.0_1.pdf

Comments

patfeb55.bsky.social•57 days ago

Like when we were taken out of the Paris Agreement early in Donnie's first term. They just go on without us.

zaggsz.bsky.social•56 days ago

They kinda pulled the same crap with USAID. After a ruling or delay instead of freezing funds they just terminated contracts and told the court they no longer had jurisdiction, that it had to go to settlement court.

njmh.bsky.social•38 days ago

I saw that. But wasn’t that when they removed injunction? Or am I wrong on that?

louisevans.bsky.social•56 days ago

for DnD nerds, this is something like confirming that "talking is a free action" and then using your in-game conversation to roll for initiative. shockingly lawless. table-flipping shit.

fairydusting.bsky.social•55 days ago

I wouldn't extend this gubment a soggy piece of bread! Go, go, go, Tewson!! 💙💙🤍🤍❤️❤️

brooklynkid53bskys.bsky.social•56 days ago

outstanding thread

If I may, as a PhD

science has a lot of similar unwritten rules that allow people to adjust for things that happen, kids getting sick and so forth

just reality

gavinicus.bsky.social•56 days ago

Like, if a supernova is about to blow but you don’t have time to be at the telescope that day, you ask the star for a short continuance. That’s just professional courtesy.

jjj8819.bsky.social•56 days ago

Read these books by Dr. Bandy X. Lee: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump and her follow up book: The More Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Psychiatrists discuss the truth of his mental condition which demonstrates his mental illness.

charlottebanks.bsky.social•56 days ago

The first time one of these jerks makes a reasonable request of opposing counsel and it's rejected, it will be headline news on Fox etc. "Look at how irredeemable libs are, lawyer's wife just gave birth and they won't even allow him two weeks to spend at home." Bully victims are all the same.

jasonandrade.bsky.social•56 days ago

Tagging @ketanjoshi.co for the fancy lawyer version of what about 80% of his posts say..

radbradley.bsky.social•56 days ago

In a surreal twist of fate the MAGA Russian Republicans have decided that murdering people is God’s will. Not just in Gaza or Ukraine. In every state in the USA. And that the government should be in charge of the killing by ending the government itself. Thereby leaving all of us to the GOP RED DEATH

vantablackpharaoh.bsky.social•56 days ago

The Great American Summer Rage is coming.

caffineaddict.bsky.social•57 days ago

What the ever loving fuck! These nut jobs need to face professional repercussions. If my firm did this, every Judge in the Cricut would hold our feet to the fire over everything. Absolutely unacceptable behavior by the government attorneys.

eastpole.bsky.social•57 days ago

"Feet to the fire" as in having to apologize? 'Cuz I get the feeling the relevant people can apologize all day today and get up early to do the same thing tomorrow. OTOH, feet to the fire might not be a metaphor, who knows?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyers%27_Movement

wndlb.bsky.social•56 days ago

“feet to the fire” as in if your kid has just gone Code Blue, tough sh*t

jarlent.bsky.social•56 days ago

What would the *Actual* consequences be though?

We've seen repeatedly that lawyers can outright break the law without losing their Bar accreditation

mochajava13.bsky.social•56 days ago

Losing your reputation with a judge is bad. They gossip about attorneys. Judges will not believe you, will give shortened deadlines, order you in to court, and possible detain for failing to abide by a court order. Government attorneys tend to have the most respect and they’re quickly losing that.

caffineaddict.bsky.social•56 days ago

Professional repercussions include things like not taking someone's word at face value, not granting standard requests without full motion and hearings, treating them like a Pro Se litigant, being a hard ass on every little thing, that kind of stuff. And in extreme cases referring to Bar.

jarlent.bsky.social•56 days ago

And do you really think those things are going to discourage these kinds of people

caffineaddict.bsky.social•56 days ago

Bar discipline can result in fines, additional CLE, probation, and disbarment. And while I've never seen unprofessional courtroom conduct getting someone disbarred around here. I have seen the others happen.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

tl;dr: the EPA asked for a 24-hour adjournment of a TRO hearing as a courtesy, got Climate United’s consent, and then used that time to terminate CU’s funding in a way that likely would have been enjoined if the hearing had proceeded as scheduled

beerandrockets.bsky.social•57 days ago

Hey @caitesq.bsky.social, these seems really not ok. Is this as bad as it sounds?

caitesq.bsky.social•57 days ago

It’s very much not ok as a matter of professionalism, and it’s the sort of thing that makes your opposing counsel take a scorched-earth approach going forward. Litigators go out of their way to avoid doing this!

sillythecat.bsky.social•56 days ago

Somehow I don't think that will amuse a judge?

Ngl I am not a lawyer and maybe a judge finds that hilarious 🤷‍♂️ Dunno...

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

It is unlikely to amuse the judge.

mefcorv.bsky.social•56 days ago

Well, I mean, something about the ultimate consequences of that action might amuse a judge. Coldly.

dmschmeyer.bsky.social•57 days ago

Tbh, conduct like that, that will probably at least get you out of a judge's spray zone if you stop extending the professional niceties.

verdemanalishi.bsky.social•56 days ago

I have to believe now that this is known it'll never work again.

And that the judge will not be happy about this.

hester-prynne.bsky.social•56 days ago

Very much Not A Lawyer and my immediate reaction was "that seems pretty bad"

lauraapollo.bsky.social•56 days ago

Insidious POS's.

aaronblackshear.bsky.social•56 days ago

If the judge doesn't bring the hammer we are so much farther gone than I thought

berg8311.bsky.social•56 days ago

That SHOULD be sanctionable, but Courts almost never actually impose sanctions, even when the actions are egregiously bad.

joanofbarks.bsky.social•56 days ago

And that's one reason they continue

berg8311.bsky.social•56 days ago

It is, and it’s one of the reasons being a lawyer can be frustrating. Judges let the envelope be pushed very far and still won’t sanction, and you have plenty of attorneys who know that and take advantage

doge-bag.bsky.social•56 days ago

Surprise, surprise, the Trump admin is playing dirty (in more ways than one) 🤦‍♂️

sallybrown.bsky.social•56 days ago

Void ab initio.

tacticalwhiskey.bsky.social•56 days ago

📌

furtherexchange.bsky.social•56 days ago

Trimp admin is the mob.

nicksempertyrannis.bsky.social•56 days ago

I've read so much of this thread and I still don't know who did the bad thing and why it's bad. The law people are worried about a thing to do with the environment. Somebody abused the legal system, maybe? It sounds like it's all very bad.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

The EPA illegally paused funding to a lot of grant recipients. Some of them sued. They asked for the judge to force the EPA to keep paying them while the case was being litigated. The lawyer for the EPA asked to bump the hearing on that request by a day and then terminated the grant during that day.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

If the hearing had proceeded on the original day, it’s very likely that the court would have said “yeah put it all back and don’t touch it while we all sort this out” so the EPA pretty clearly lied to the plaintiffs to do a further illegal thing before they could be told it was for sure illegal

nicksempertyrannis.bsky.social•56 days ago

Wow, that's fucked. Thank you for explaining it to me. My Cousin Vinny did not prepare me to understand all these abbreviations and legal terminology.

qubex.bsky.social•56 days ago

They took the “play dirty” elective at law school.

phacelia.bsky.social•56 days ago

And ANY Dems who fall for any GOP 'compromises' like amendments in exchange for cloture will ensure exactly this kind of result
@schiff.senate.gov @padilla.senate.gov @schumer.senate.gov

robertagreer.bsky.social•56 days ago

I had a trial set the day my firstborn decided to enter the world. Opposing counsel only agreed to delay the trial two days. I will never forgive that piece of shit.

lawyerlady.bsky.social•56 days ago

Yeah this sounds familiar. People don’t always agree to the specific timing you want, but usually they give something. Here, it was only a day…

robertagreer.bsky.social•56 days ago

This was at the height of COVID too

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

man, fuck that guy.

robertagreer.bsky.social•56 days ago

thunderrolls62.bsky.social•56 days ago

🤣

peregrinekate.bsky.social•56 days ago

WHAT

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/kathryntewson.bsky.social/post/3lk7cwezckk24

peregrinekate.bsky.social•56 days ago

Ok. Obligatory IANAL disclaimer. But wtaf. Does the Court have no discretion to say not so fast, you jerks?

anseljh.com•56 days ago

It sure does, especially for a TRO

peregrinekate.bsky.social•56 days ago

Good.

justwaititwillbeok.bsky.social•56 days ago

Thank you! I guess those little images of pages are helpful to lawyers, but for the rest of us, it's just small text using legalese for two pages to say what you said in a paragraph. Lawyers, please summarize!

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

Also, re-reading the top skeet through the eyes of folks not in the legal profession, I realize that already sounds like madness — “why is ANYONE EXTENDING THESE FUCKS PROFESSIONAL COURTESY RIGHT NOW” — so let me just explain how fuckin’ sacrosanct this unwritten rule is

tobybartels.bsky.social•57 days ago

I have to admit, this was my initial reaction. Your explanation makes sense, but I don't think that people can extend this to the fascists anymore (nor should they need it since they're the only ones with plenty of money to hire more people).

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

See my NFL game example. If the plaintiffs in these cases preemptively stop following the expectations of the profession, it will piss off the judges something fierce.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

Money has nothing to do with it. Not every problem can be solved by throwing bodies at it. A unilateral refusal to extend courtesy would be as likely to draw a standing order from the court requiring consent to reasonable extensions on pain of contempt as anything else

tobybartels.bsky.social•57 days ago

But at some point can you cite similar cases where they abused courtesy as a justification for refusing to extend it? Or do you just have to let irreferable harm happen and complain afterwards?

brute.bsky.social•56 days ago

When I was the defendant in an arbitration, the otherside asked for the weekend to respond to a motion and I was "fuck no, tell them no!" and my absolute saint of an attorney was like "their firm has 200 attorneys, when they ask for a delay it is NOT because their case gets better with more time."

boinzy.bsky.social•56 days ago

I always appreciate your knowledge drops.

oaklandishdude.bsky.social•57 days ago

Yeah this me until I talk to my wife who is a lawyer. And then there is me saying fuck me I don't understand the legal system at all. And she laughs at. But only in the the most sacrosanct way.

nolo93.bsky.social•57 days ago

The rule is a good one, until the other side exploits it. At that point, especially when a party uses an extension FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of doing something that the court might have barred them from doing, there should be a motion for sanctions.

nolo93.bsky.social•57 days ago

If it turns out the client exploited the extension without the attorney's knowledge, the client should be sanctioned.

onbluskysku.bsky.social•57 days ago

Just had a gnarly fight of a case where our lead counsel got a head cold and opposing counsel immediately consented to an extension on post-hearing briefs. Just basic decency stuff. But if I was litigating against the federal government and they pulled this in a case yes I would stop all consents.

lezurko.bsky.social•56 days ago

"Let me just explain how fucking sacrosanct this unwritten rule is"

This could be the epitaph written on the tombstones of a few nations.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

Which is why it's a big deal that it's arguably now reasonable to discard it in cases against the US Government.

henningt6.bsky.social•56 days ago

The problem is that too many people who act democratically and socially still think that we have to abide by rules that the fascists (Trump IS included) disregard.

You must know the tolerance paradox!!!

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/kathryntewson.bsky.social/post/3lkbezpc6ck2o

henningt6.bsky.social•56 days ago

That's not the right answer to my post. This is not about "I told you so", but about the most important theory of how to fight fascism. Please read about the paradox of tolerance.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

It really sounds like you’re saying “I told you so” or at the very least “attorneys should preemptively disregard these professional expectations even if it prejudices their client”

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

Attorneys aren’t their clients, right? That’s part of the whole deal. But what attorneys are, is human, and sometimes “being a living human” and “hitting every single rigid deadline” is just not compatible. People get sick, people’s kids get sick.

eastpole.bsky.social•57 days ago

Thanks, explanation was needed and is helpful.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

All your cases have something weird happen at once. There’s a hailstorm and your power goes out. Your spouse, or your kid, has something going on in their life that requires you to be present for them.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

Your client mentions something that they “didn’t think was important” and suddenly you need to do a LOT of investigation. Could be anything! And suddenly there just not enough hours left to write the words that need to be written

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

When this happens, you reach out to opposing counsel and say “hey, can I have three more days / two more weeks / another month?” and the expectation is that they will say yes if they can make it work, because they’re gonna need it too at some point. Because everyone does!

kevinrsours.bsky.social•56 days ago

While I understand, the only response to this is to vigorously oppose a government request for a five minute recess to pee. This has to be no retreat no quarter territory.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

Balanced against the need to not inconvenience or piss off the court, yes.

timoconnorbl.bsky.social•56 days ago

You don’t do this. You just DO NOT DO THIS. It’s *appalling.*

gowder.io•57 days ago

Whattttttttttttttttt

kathryntewson.bsky.social•57 days ago

you heard me right!

drvivien2u.bsky.social•56 days ago

They need to be sanctioned

77yoldlady.bsky.social•56 days ago

time to go Luigi Mangionin on the asses

paigeleitman.bsky.social•56 days ago

Please summarize what you did last week in five bullets.

Luigi: ok!

ubermenchies.bsky.social•55 days ago

And this is why I roll my eyes when people try telling us that the Trump admin is complying with court orders.

kathryntewson.bsky.social•55 days ago

If they truly didn't care about the orders, they wouldn't have tried to slip it past the deadline.

ubermenchies.bsky.social•55 days ago

Didn't say they didn't care about them. They're certainly doing everything they can to avoid complying with them, though.

tannytanny.bsky.social•56 days ago

I read the filing, what manipulative jerks.
I'm wondering who the judge is in this case.

altscience.bsky.social•56 days ago

Any chance that Judges Don't Like That Kind Of Thing?

kathryntewson.bsky.social•56 days ago

Pretty good yeah

kid-rio.bsky.social•56 days ago

Vicious apparatchiks in blue suits and red ties. This is who they are and what they do—do not turn your back on them.

kelong.bsky.social•56 days ago

Normally I would say this is a very surprising and stupid move by the EPA, but given what we know about how these agencies are being “run” it is not surprising. But it sure is monumentally stupid. And sanctionable, in my opinion.

itspook.com•56 days ago

This... this seeks like begging your opponent and future opponents to give you no quarter.

nocatsnomasters.bsky.social•56 days ago

If one is going to choose a cause on which to burn all of one's professional courtesy and standing, this is an odd one to choose. I'd wait for something... important? This is just burning bridges in an obviously spiteful fashion. It's the sort of thing people remember.

spacewolf.bsky.social•56 days ago

What are the odds this judge, on this case, moves to sanction the attorneys for the government or the defendants themselves (or both)?

marcushbert.bsky.social•56 days ago

Important thread. The success of many of this admin's cruel and lawless actions rely upon abuse of courtesies. They count on benefit of the doubt from reporters, favors from colleagues, rules of decorum, etc. Everyone dealing with them needs to wise up! "Please" should not get them anything!