Court challenge denied http://ia801506.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.txsd.1386946/gov.uscourts.txsd.1386946.15.0.pdf 3 more hours and it's officially done. --MM From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Krimm Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:58 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Transition lawsuit Of course, this is just the trial phase (district court). If this judge has to twist himself into a pretzel to get his desired outcome, then there will be grounds for appeal, as long as those on the appealing side have the financial resources (or the pro bono interest) to bring it back. Not too surprising that those filing the suit would venue-shop if they have the option. Sometimes this can get them further, but there are limits to this strategy if the actual substance of the case is weak on the merits. Sometimes venue-shopping is the equivalent of a "Hail Mary" -- an act of desperation intended to increase chances of ultimate success from infinitesimal to minuscule. That's what lawyers get paid the big bucks for... Dan On 9/29/16 5:44 PM, Edward Morris wrote: Hello everyone, ?The lawsuit will be heard at 18:30 UTC today (Friday). It has been assigned to Judge George Hanks. Judge Hanks is a conservative, appointed by President Barrack Obama but nominated by Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. Hanks was appointed to his first judgeship by conservative Republican Governor Rick Perry. During his initial re-election campaign, in 2002, the Republican National State Election campaign committee donated $500 to Judge Hanks. In 2008 Judge Hanks himself donated $250 to Senator Cornyn, the man who eventually nominated to his current position. I agree with Milton - there is not a lot to this case. There is enough on the surface, though, that it passes the laugh test. I've read about a dozen opinions by Judge Hanks this evening and he certainly is not a black letter law guy. On the limited basis of what I've read he seems to search for law that justifies the outcome he wants as much as he applies the law to fact situations appropriately. A dozen cases does not make a judge but it is a bit worrying. I believe standing is a problem and the case should be dismissed. I'm not sure that is going to happen, at least immediately, but I hope it does. The Plaintiffs could have filed anywhere in 4 states. They picked the venue where they felt they had the best chance of success. It will be an interesting day. Best, Ed ________________________________ From: "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:49 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Transition Lawsuit Their legal claims are utter rubbish. They are basically speculating that without USG oversight ICANN might destroy the .GOV domain. They are claiming that the root is US government property - a claim that GAO has already discredited - and they are claiming the NTIA didn't provide an opportunity for public comment. As Michael Froomkin said on Twitter, it's not a matter of whether these claims will succeed or not, it's a matter of how quickly they will be dismissed. From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karel Douglas Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:40 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Transition Lawsuit Thanks Ed, I scanned the pleadings and would be very interested to see how the Court will treat with their legal arguments. Thanks for sharing. Regards Karel Douglas