My anger at this is not assuaged. I’ve been practicing in federal court for almost 40 years. Because of Rule 11 - and fear of misrepresenting any fact to a federal court - I would never offer as proof something that was this questionable. Can you address Rule 11 for people who don’t know what that requires? IMHO, Smith’s lawyers were req…
My anger at this is not assuaged. I’ve been practicing in federal court for almost 40 years. Because of Rule 11 - and fear of misrepresenting any fact to a federal court - I would never offer as proof something that was this questionable. Can you address Rule 11 for people who don’t know what that requires? IMHO, Smith’s lawyers were required to make an attempt to verify that website request. It was ONE witness whose contact information they had. And stipulated facts would not exempt you from that requirement.
And I get pre-enforcement challenges. But they still have to be decided on a REAL record. So in the trans litigations, the folks had to show that they were on medications, in treatment, capable of suffering real harm, etc. I disagree with those statutes but I couldn’t confer standing on myself simply by saying well, I think I would like to become a woman so I’m suing. That would allow me - a person with an agenda and not a real stake - to step in and control a litigation where the people most affected would be displaced.
Further, you need a real record. In the trans cases medical experts testified. This phantom customer should have been made to testify at a hearing on the application for the TRO or PI. They needed to be asked, what are you looking for? What are you asking Ms. Smith to do? Would the website - even though for a gay couple - be gender neutral? Would the requested website have steered clear of religion altogether? These are fundamental questions in my view to fashioning relief and deciding what the law should be. But it’s a phantom record over a phantom dispute.
This has all the earmarks of a put up job by a phony designated plaintiff. Right or left that’s corrosive of the process. This whole proceeding and decision smacks of pure Supreme Court legislation. They’re playing with fire. People are not going to stand for much more of this as they are negating rights and disregarding precedent. They’re creating a problem that will be addressed extra-judicially.
I don’t disagree with most of this — and I certainly think there are legitimate questions to be raised about the conduct at the district court — but I also think these comments don’t particularly address the case as it was decided by the 10th Circuit or argued and decided at the Supreme Court. Does that make sense?
As a non lawyer, who also sees this case as a total put up job by right wing extremists who want to discriminate against LGBTQ, I have to admit Asha Rangappa has a point when she says Colorado did a shit job defending against this. Bith Smiths lawyers AND CO lawyers should have checked into this phony request long before it reached the 10th circuit
My anger at this is not assuaged. I’ve been practicing in federal court for almost 40 years. Because of Rule 11 - and fear of misrepresenting any fact to a federal court - I would never offer as proof something that was this questionable. Can you address Rule 11 for people who don’t know what that requires? IMHO, Smith’s lawyers were required to make an attempt to verify that website request. It was ONE witness whose contact information they had. And stipulated facts would not exempt you from that requirement.
And I get pre-enforcement challenges. But they still have to be decided on a REAL record. So in the trans litigations, the folks had to show that they were on medications, in treatment, capable of suffering real harm, etc. I disagree with those statutes but I couldn’t confer standing on myself simply by saying well, I think I would like to become a woman so I’m suing. That would allow me - a person with an agenda and not a real stake - to step in and control a litigation where the people most affected would be displaced.
Further, you need a real record. In the trans cases medical experts testified. This phantom customer should have been made to testify at a hearing on the application for the TRO or PI. They needed to be asked, what are you looking for? What are you asking Ms. Smith to do? Would the website - even though for a gay couple - be gender neutral? Would the requested website have steered clear of religion altogether? These are fundamental questions in my view to fashioning relief and deciding what the law should be. But it’s a phantom record over a phantom dispute.
This has all the earmarks of a put up job by a phony designated plaintiff. Right or left that’s corrosive of the process. This whole proceeding and decision smacks of pure Supreme Court legislation. They’re playing with fire. People are not going to stand for much more of this as they are negating rights and disregarding precedent. They’re creating a problem that will be addressed extra-judicially.
I don’t disagree with most of this — and I certainly think there are legitimate questions to be raised about the conduct at the district court — but I also think these comments don’t particularly address the case as it was decided by the 10th Circuit or argued and decided at the Supreme Court. Does that make sense?
As a non lawyer, who also sees this case as a total put up job by right wing extremists who want to discriminate against LGBTQ, I have to admit Asha Rangappa has a point when she says Colorado did a shit job defending against this. Bith Smiths lawyers AND CO lawyers should have checked into this phony request long before it reached the 10th circuit