Yesterday some lawyers were defending DOJ attorneys who refused to say whether any action was taken to unfreeze funds in compliance with the TRO. I wonder if people will be still be defending a brief this patently dishonest about the history of the case. - ThreadSky

obarcala.bsky.social • 22 hours ago

Yesterday some lawyers were defending DOJ attorneys who refused to say whether any action was taken to unfreeze funds in compliance with the TRO. I wonder if people will be still be defending a brief this patently dishonest about the history of the case.

Reposted from Lawrence Hurley

Filing: www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...

Comments

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

How do you represent to the appeals court that this is something that happened "in the last 24 hours" when it's an order enforcing a TRO entered on February 13, after a prior order enforcing it on February 21?

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

The need for the short turnaround is precisely because the government's refusal to comply with the TRO has brought the plaintiffs to the point of insolvency, but here the government is saying it's really their fault and it means the government will be damaged

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

The notice of appeal attaches the transcript, which includes the portion where Judge Ali set out his order at the hearing. I'm going to copy it here, about 4.5 pages

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Continued

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Something that is very important for the scope of this TRO—it is expressly limited to invoices for *work already performed* before Feb 13

"[D]efendants shall pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests on all contracts for work completed prior to the entry of the Court's TRO on Feb 13."

obarcala.bsky.social•20 hours ago

The appeal makes it sound as if the court is ordering them to enter into contracts or fund new work, but this is all work that was already done before the TRO in reliance on prior approvals. No new outlays, just paying debts already incurred.

deanhigginz.bsky.social•20 hours ago

But stiffing a contractor after they’ve completed the work is a Trump tradition!

otiscampbell.bsky.social•20 hours ago

DOGE can not pay as ordered because DOGE impounded the money? Is that what this is?

berg8311.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Ah yes an immediate blanket freeze without any examination as to whether the US is legally obliged to pay it is ok, but ordering the US to disperse the money that was already supposed to be dispersed, that could chaos!

samhalpert.bsky.social•20 hours ago

“without regard to the federal government's meritorious arguments to the contrary,” — the court regarded those arguments /weeks ago/. Each time they’re asked about whether they’re complying they re-litigate the TRO. It boils down to: “it’s improper to ask us to obey orders with which we disagree.”

rednecklefty.bsky.social•8 hours ago

I'm curious how they defended that behavior in court.

hiresx.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Woooooow

amypearl650.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Here we go. We're about to see the showdown with the judiciary. Friday is the economic lockdown day; I hope there are huge protests, also with lots of yellow and blue to show Ukraine support. #NoDictators, #NoKings #DemocracyIsNotASpectatorSport ⚖️🇺🇲🗳️

jdotj.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Exactly.

segalmr.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Seems like if a party is going to take the position that it now cannot do, by the deadline, what it was first ordered to do on 2/13, then that party would have to concede that because compliance is now (supposedly) impossible, sanctions are an appropriate alternative remedy.

justinlawguy.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Look at all the career civil appellate staff who signed their name to that brief!

passim.bsky.social•20 hours ago

Objection, these guys are assholes.

Sustained.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply