Federal judge orders AG Healey to appear for deposition Dec 13th

[bigblue]

What are the practical results of this ruling?

 

[browncoat]

Excellent.

Does this actually mean anything, or is the appeals court saying there is no appeal due to the cancelled deposition?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[peterthefish]

Does this actually mean anything, or is the appeals court saying there is no appeal due to the cancelled deposition?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

That's my take. She'll have to re-appeal after the judge rules on the briefs.

 

[M1911]

That's my take. She'll have to re-appeal after the judge rules on the briefs.

That is what I think. If the judge rules that the deposition should go ahead once he's read the briefs, she will then file another appeal.

 

[bigblue]

That is what I think. If the judge rules that the deposition should go ahead once he's read the briefs, she will then file another appeal.

Great: Lawyers making more work for other lawyers, all for zero actual productivity.

 

[M1911]

Great: Lawyers making more work for other lawyers, all for zero actual productivity.

How you incentivize people changes their behavior. One of my Dilbert favorites:

 

[bigblue]

How you incentivize people changes their behavior. One of my Dilbert favorites:

Yep.

 

[amm5061]

How you incentivize people changes their behavior. One of my Dilbert favorites:

Always been one of my favorite Dilbert strips.

 

[Mike S]

Great: Lawyers making more work for other lawyers, all for zero actual productivity.

At $500 per hour billed to us, lets not forget that.

 

[LittleCalm]

At $500 per hour billed to us, lets not forget that.

Hey, at NES we always whine about due process. Can't have it both ways fellas.

 

[71montess]

Can we plumbers figure out how to do this ?

 

[dhuze]

You want to take a cut in pay?

 

[bigblue]

So about Healey...

 

[Mike S]

Hey, at NES we always whine about due process. Can't have it both ways fellas.

This has nothing to do with due process.

 

[Glockster30]

Judge Kinkeade extended the Brief submittal date from 1/4/17 to 2/1/17.

164	Filed: 12/15/2016, Entered: None
	ORDER: The Court hereby extends the deadline set by the Court's, December 12, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 159), to February 1, 2017 and ORDERS all parties to submit a brief to the Court regarding whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Attorney General Healey and/or Attorney General Schneiderman. The briefs shall be no more than twenty-five (25) pages in length. No extensions of this deadline will be considered absent exigent circumstances. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/15/2016) (chmb) (Entered: 12/15/2016) 159 Filed: 12/12/2016, Entered: None ORDER: The Court ORDERS all parties to submit a brief to the Court regarding whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Attorney General Healey and/or Attorney General Schneiderman totaling twenty-five (25) pages. All briefing on this issue of personal jurisdiction must be filed on or before January 4, 2017. No extensions of this deadline will be considered absent exigent circumstances. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/12/2016) (chmb) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/30...strict-court/exxon-mobil-corporation-v-healey

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Judge Kinkeade extended the Brief submittal date from 1/4/17 to 2/1/17.

Must be one of them thar exigent circumstances

 

[LittleCalm]

This has nothing to do with due process.

Ahh, yes it does. Personal jurisdiction questions and whether you can be dragged in front of a court are substantive due process considerations and implicate the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

Bummer that the judge extended the deadline.

 

[rwl1955]

Is this judge getting cold feet?

 

[PL-52]

Is this judge getting cold feet?

Or is he trying to get past the inauguration? How is his previous record, conservative or liberal?

 

[MachineHead]

Is there a way of finding out how many federal court appointees are needed after 1/20? IIRC, the POTUS appoints these judges and might be a strategic move on the part of Judge Kinkeade. Say a Lefty judge retires from the 5CA, then Trump gets to appoint a new Righty judge in that place. Just a thought.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is there a way of finding out how many federal court appointees are needed after 1/20? IIRC, the POTUS appoints these judges and might be a strategic move on the part of Judge Kinkeade. Say a Lefty judge retires from the 5CA, then Trump gets to appoint a new Righty judge in that place. Just a thought.

there are currently 103 vacancies in the federal judiciary including one on the Supreme Court. There will be many more next year due to active

 

[Dadstoys]

Or is he trying to get past the inauguration? How is his previous record, conservative or liberal?

I wonder if this might not be the case.
There has to be some pressure on him for going after a liberal darling.
1/20 it's going to be a whole new ball game.

 

[M1911]

I wonder if this might not be the case.
There has to be some pressure on him for going after a liberal darling.
1/20 it's going to be a whole new ball game.

No, it's not. It will be the same judge, the same laws, and the same two defendants. "Because Trump" won't change any of that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dadstoys]

No, it's not. It will be the same judge, the same laws, and the same two defendants. "Because Trump" won't change any of that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don't think that pressure get applied to either Judges or Prosecutors on behalf of party sweethearts?

 

[Editor]

Is this judge getting cold feet?

My theory is that half of all judges and attorneys are skiing during January; those are are not skiing have their feet up on the desk wishing they were skiing. So maybe the judge had forgotten about his ski vacation. (Tongue in cheek; obviously the judiciary doesn't grind to a halt the entire month of January; sometimes it just seems like it.)

 

[M1911]

You don't think that pressure get applied to either Judges or Prosecutors on behalf of party sweethearts?

There are no prosecutors involved in this case, just the MA Attorney General. The US Justice Department is not a party to this lawsuit.

And I hope to hell no political pressure is brought on any judge, from any party.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And I hope to hell no political pressure is brought on any judge, from any party.

There is always the implied political pressure of wanting to behave in a manner that will be appreciated by those in power, particularly if the judge aspires to a higher court.

It's kind of like how the Clintons don't have to order anyone dead .... if you do something that convinces their minions that the Clintons would be better off with you dead, your statistical chances of committing suicide, having an unfortunate accident, or being shot in the back in a robbery in which nothing is taken increases dramatically.

 

[Dadstoys]

There are no prosecutors involved in this case, just the MA Attorney General. The US Justice Department is not a party to this lawsuit.

And I hope to hell no political pressure is brought on any judge, from any party.

Obamacare
I'll leave it at that.

 

[M1911]

Obamacare
I'll leave it at that.

Huh?

That was a federal statute, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. You are comparing that to illegally pressuring a judge? Really?

FFS.

 

[n1oty]

He's referring to the immense pressure brought to bear on Chief Justice Roberts.