- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Your consent only matters for trials. This case hasn't and will never reach a trial (already dismissed)
Why does this matter again? Neither Kiwi Farms, nor it's users were bound by this user, and even if we were (we are not), the order did not prohibit sharing the previous version.
That's not true. The judge never stated that the personal identifiers (to be redacted) were to be of your on choosing. Here's the order:
Hardin fully complied. See:
And the Judge (who issued the order) found that he did comply. She would know best what she meant with her order. See:
Judge Jones found that too:
That's actually not true. The only things he said that he would punish baseless motions, and that the merits are now reviewed by the appellate court
1. Your consent is, again, immaterial
2. Judge Jones ordered no such thing
3. Point D is absurd
4. And so is Point E
1. I wonder why the Judge ruled on the motions that were not before the appellate court. Maybe because not everything is before that court? One wonders
2. You have not a right to a hearing.
I've discussed this to no end. Let's just say she is wrong. Quick why:
28 U.S. Code § 636 multiple times states that the judges do not need consent for pre-trial matters (including hearings).
She is correct on the C point. The judges cannot act in retaliatory manner. Her citation on the federal law is completely wrong, though.
She sets up why the court should have jurisdiction. This is perhaps the most coherent argument she ever made. Good job
And I take it back. You shot yourself in the foot. Nothing here, bar the citation, is correct.
That's not what he said. See above
1. It's is not the problem at the appellate court that you lack basic reading abilities
2. You should have used all that several months to subpoena those documents if you needed them. It is not the problem of the court that you were unprepared (both in documents and in practice) until the last minute.
1. Again you misunderstand basic law
2. It's up to you to prove that the judge acted retaliatory, especially where there is no evidence the judge did. The evidence is on the moving party
3. There is no right to a hearing
1. You have no right to a hearing
2. Hardin did comply (see above)
If you want that, you should appeal the order which Hardin complied with. Your issue is with that order, not the Hardin's compliance.
What kind of injunction is that Mel? There are three different types. Given what you want, I'll assume it's a permanent one. For that you need to prove (1) that [you] ha[ve] suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between [you] and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Typically such injunctions are to be issued by the district court. See Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006). You have neither showed any of the points, nor you fit them.
Personally, I don't think an injunction is what you need, but what do I know? Personally I think this is a massive insult to law and the appellate court, but hey, could be wrong
That's for R&R. It hasn't been issued here.
Sure, if it's a trial.
Quick question, my man, what is written on the first page of her original complaint?
Congrats, you are two years late
