WOW! that was fast! LOL. A pity that the court order did not explain the reason for the dismissal. Thanks Milton. regards Karel Douglas On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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]> <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent*: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:49 PM > *To*: [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] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Karel Douglas > *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:40 AM > *To:* [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 > > > > > > >