, 18 tweets, 5 min read
Good evening, Threadnought - New Filings!

There are 2. One is a motion to compel; the second is labeled as an order granting the motion. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE COURT HAS GRANTED THE MOTION - it's a courtesy to the court, not something the court has done. (At least not yet.)
Here's a link for the motion, which I haven't looked at yet. I won't bother with the order.

OK - sorry for the delays. Running late tonight, and still have something else coming up shortly, but had a chance to eat finally, so I think I'm up to the task of facing this thing.
We'll start with the prayer, as usual:

Looks like Lemoine recognizes that it's unlikely that the court will rule prior to the original date specified on the subpoena, but would still like things to proceed fairly quickly - reasonable, given the upcoming hearing.

Yes there is a document on the docket that is labeled as an order granting this motion to compel; it is common practice for attorneys to draft orders granting motions like this so that the judge doesn't have to.

Sorry for the shouting on that, but I remember something similar causing some confusion earlier in the case, and I'd like to avoid that this time if at all possible.

Moving on to the intro:
Damn, son.
This is - what's the word I'm looking for - blunt.
There are intros, and then there are INTROS.

Also, this is good, solid legal writing. The first paragraph leaves no doubt as to what the author is requesting and why; the second addresses counter-arguments.
Moving on, it looks like the defendants have been working on this for nearly 2 weeks, and that they've been in contact with Slatosch.

It also notes that Slatosch is not represented (or at least has not said that he is).
It also seems that Ty had plenty of warning that this was in progress, and that many attempts were made to work this out before bothering the court. They also have demonstrated that they've taken steps to ensure that they are not making Slatosch travel too far.
The remaining procedural details point to contradictions in testimony between Slatosch and Toye, remind the court that Ty initially presented Slatosch's testimony to the court under false pretenses, and notes the upcoming sanctions hearing.
Moving on, the argument here might be familiar to those of you who were following some the discussions that some of the lawyers were having about Mr. Lemoine's efforts to conduct discovery into the shenanigans that Ty and Vic participated in.
Paragraph 10 is the kicker - it covers what Lemoine expects to learn by deposing Slatosch. There's a fair amount mentioned, but the final sentence is a fairly key one, since it covers the material that (at least IMO) is most directly relevant to the sanctions hearing.
Specifically, it states that they expect Slatosch to testify not only about Ty's conduct, but also about Vic's conduct during the relevant period.
The remaining 4 paragraphs respond to the points Ty raised in the motion to quash. Since that's out of my wheelhouse, I'll leave the commentary on this to others.
Overall impressions:
(1) No idea if this will be granted - not my area; not comfortable making predictions.
(2) That said, while there's room for disagreement, I still think the areas that the defendants want to learn about are relevant to the sanctions motion.
(3) This strikes me as the kind of motion that is beneficial if won, but doesn't really do harm if it's lost. (And there might be some other benefits to the attempt.)

So we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!