The judge in this case has now issued an absolutely brutal smackdown that you'll enjoy reading. It comes complete with a well-earned threat of sanctions.

Here's the decision. Some highlights follow

https://t.co/u8GypCeRT4
Pretty sure I said this, using slightly different words!
Hey, @questauthority, it sounds like Judge Boasberg was about as pleased about the long "none of this matters but we want to say it anyway" section as we expected him to be
You CANNOT run into court claiming there's an emergency and you need an expedited schedule so you can be heard before 1/6 and then just not bother serving anyone for 12 days
OOOOOOOOOF level: Infinity. Achievement unlocked
Seriously, a court saying "this band of merry fuckwits got this wrong for many more reasons than I can cover so I'll just pick the top FOUR" is not something that you ever want to see
Just going to pause here to remember that the Court did this without opposition briefing (since no opponent was served nobody responded) because these problems were so glaring
YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY ASKING TO BE DISENFRANCHISED
Not only are you the wrong plaintiffs, but, unfortunately, you neglected to provide the Court with the necessary time-travel machine
That first highlighting is the politest version of "what the ever-loving fuck were you guys smoking to think that this was a thing" that I can remember seeing, ever, and I love it.
"must also pause at" is entering my personal litigation toolbox, thanks
There is no rule that requires the court to quote a party's briefing in the order; those "Sic" notations are just twists of the knife.

Because the substantive argument was loony tunes
ahahahahaha
This judge gets it. As I said, this suit was a political stunt, and the Court is correct not to let itself get used for that.

Note: the grievance committee can issue discipline ranging from "take some CLEs" all the way through "you can no longer practice in DC Federal Court"
And that's it.

Seriously, this ruling was chicken soup for the ethical litigator's soul. Very much needed

More from Akiva Cohen

More from For later read

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.