Langbord update
SanctionII
Posts: 12,592 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just happened to check the case docket for the Langbord appeal today.
Yesterday the court of appeal issued an order denying the Langbords' request for permission to file an opening brief in the appeal that exceeds the "word limit" for a brief. The court is requiring that the Langbords file their opening brief in the appeal 30 days from yesterday.
After the Langbords file their opening brief the government is required to file its brief in the appeal (which is supposed to address the matters raised in the Langbords opening brief and set for the government's position on the appeal). After the government files its brief, the Langbords may then file a reply brief that responds to the matters contained in the government's brief. After these three briefs are filed, the case will proceed to where there is a hearing before the court of appeal at which time the attorneys for both sides will present oral argument to the court. At the conclusion of oral argument the case will be submitted to the court of appeal for decision. It is also possible (but highly unlikely) that both sides will waive oral argument and submit the case to the court of appeal on the briefs only.
So things are starting to move in the case again.
Yesterday the court of appeal issued an order denying the Langbords' request for permission to file an opening brief in the appeal that exceeds the "word limit" for a brief. The court is requiring that the Langbords file their opening brief in the appeal 30 days from yesterday.
After the Langbords file their opening brief the government is required to file its brief in the appeal (which is supposed to address the matters raised in the Langbords opening brief and set for the government's position on the appeal). After the government files its brief, the Langbords may then file a reply brief that responds to the matters contained in the government's brief. After these three briefs are filed, the case will proceed to where there is a hearing before the court of appeal at which time the attorneys for both sides will present oral argument to the court. At the conclusion of oral argument the case will be submitted to the court of appeal for decision. It is also possible (but highly unlikely) that both sides will waive oral argument and submit the case to the court of appeal on the briefs only.
So things are starting to move in the case again.
0
Comments
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Thanks,
bob
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
I appreciate it.
Thanks again.
Lance.
<< <i>I just happened to check the case docket for the Langbord appeal today.
Yesterday the court of appeal issued an order denying the Langbords' request for permission to file an opening brief in the appeal that exceeds the "word limit" for a brief. The court is requiring that the Langbords file their opening brief in the appeal 30 days from yesterday.
After the Langbords file their opening brief the government is required to file its brief in the appeal (which is supposed to address the matters raised in the Langbords opening brief and set for the government's position on the appeal). After the government files its brief, the Langbords may then file a reply brief that responds to the matters contained in the government's brief. After these three briefs are filed, the case will proceed to where there is a hearing before the court of appeal at which time the attorneys for both sides will present oral argument to the court. At the conclusion of oral argument the case will be submitted to the court of appeal for decision. It is also possible (but highly unlikely) that both sides will waive oral argument and submit the case to the court of appeal on the briefs only.
So things are starting to move in the case again. >>
Court of appeal denying a brief because of a "word limit"? LOL.
Judge: This thing is too long, I ain't reading it. Gavel. "Next case!"
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>When will this ever end? >>
When the Gubmint runs out of your tax dollars to squander.
<< <i>
<< <i>When will this ever end? >>
When the Gubmint runs out of your tax dollars to squander. >>
Or the Langbords pass away.
<< <i>If I were the judge I'd just say, "The plaintiff gets 5, the defendant gets 5". Case dismissed, next case. >>
The first business of the court is to ensure continued business, therefore you cannot be a Judge. Sorry.
Free Trial
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>I wonder what the Feds have spent trying and appealing this case? People wonder why our government is such a mess. Its not only the President and the Legislature causing all the problems. >>
That to me is one of the most compelling issues of this whole thing. Someone in the justice dept. got a hold of this, and will. not. let it. go. This is not a faceless government going after the $20s, it is a very specific person.
Who is that person, and what is their story? That story may be just as intriguing as Izzy Switt's connections in the Mint.
Look how many jobs he created in all those other fields.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>so, exactly who appoints a federal judge and who issues the paycheck for a federal judge?
Yep. It is a kangaroo court all the way. I wish they would just melt these things and not waste taxpayers' dollars shipping them around the country to show to people who are are not interested. Government lawyers work for a salary so they don't care what the case is, and government judges had their minds made up before the arguments were presented. So why waste time with this case? Heat up the melting pot and be done with it. The government bought the one coin that is "legal" so the hell with it. There are two of these coins in the Smithsonian, and that is all we need.
<< <i>If I were the judge I'd just say, "The plaintiff gets 5, the defendant gets 5". Case dismissed, next case. >>
some wish it was that simple. great idea though