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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>