Thread by @EvanDonovan

😷DAY 4 OF MASK MANDATE BAN TRIAL😷

Closing arguments have just begun — You can watch along here

Whisenhunt will do closing for the plaintiffs' families

Dr. Kriseman testified yesterday, left us w chilling thought - hospitals are bursting at seams

How can we prevent school boards from doing whats in their constitutional authority

It's what school boards are elected to do

Whisenhunt: we've heard from various doctors, experts, different fields, pediatric, pulmonology, immunology — all of whom are involved in a very real, local fight against #COVID19.

They explained reality of #DeltaVariant and how it is different and dangerous

Whisenhunt: CDC data shows rapid escalation of these cases, more fatalities among children. We also heard from plaintiffs and families.

Parents of children with vulnerabilities need other kids masked. And no one is trying to force other kids with vulnerabilities to wear them

Whisenhunt: the idea no one is an island is no longer the case - we've decided ourselves into factions & groups, can't even agree on common sense.

We tell kids to cover their mouths and noses when they cough or sneeze. It's not 100%, but it's something. But yet we can't do masks

Whisenhunt: we also heard from Chancellor Oliva, about how Florida is doing so great and a leader, but he didn't acknowledge the weaknesses

We heard from a health economist (NB: ref to Bhattacharya) who used other people's data to come to opposite conclusion of other experts

Whisenhunt: I want to address issues before the court. Regarding FEA vs. DeSantis last year...

Judge: i was wondering when you were gonna mention that case.

Whisenhunt: at its core, that case was about allocation of funding to school districts. Greatly simplified...

Whisenhunt: ...it was about how school districts get funding for in-person vs. remote, they come at different times. There was concern about opening brick and mortar schools last year.

During State of Emergency, DeSantis delegated authority to Commissioner Corcoran

Whisenhunt: that delegation is everything. That's different from this case where DeSantis *directed* the Dept of Ed to promulgate rules.

Last year, the funding was treated as an incentive - open schools and you'll get more funding. Or don't, and you get no added $$

Whisenhunt: Court in that FEA case repeated that fact - that ultimately the decision was left up to school districts, which is why court found plaintiffs did not have standing. Because decision whether to reopen rested with school board. That's important language.

Whisenhunt: these were decisions left up to school board, they were in charge. That's very different than what we have here. This is a restriction on school boards under threat of losing funding.

No longer tempting them with carrot, he's hitting them with a stick

Whisenhunt: also bears no logic. Not wearing masks in schools during pandemic when masks have been helping.

Here's some quotes from 1st District Court of Appeals in FEA case

Whisenhunt: Decision reamins with local school boards...appellees can not meet burden because they cannot prove injury.

Also it rose during a declared state of emergency. That expired before the order in *this* case.

Whisenhunt: what about "safe schools" - FEA case said court shouldn't weigh in on what qualifies as "safe"

How safe is safe? It's like what is or is not obscenity. Justice Stuart Potter's famous line - I'm not gonna try to define it, but I know it when I see it

Whisenhunt: we also know what unsafe is when we see it - prohibiting a school district from adhering to CDC's recommendations during a pandemic is definitely unsafe.

Not sure if we need to address standing?

Judge: your call

Whisenhunt: actual harm to plaintiffs here

Whisenhunt: you heard from parents on both sides how impt it was that child returns to classroom.

Because of @GovRonDeSantis Executive Order, our parents are being forced to choose between child's right to education and child's right to be safe

Whisenhunt: @GovRonDeSantis has made it impossible for school districts to be safe without significant financial penalties.

Put in an impossible position to do what is fundamentally right as a consequence of Gov's EO. That's why there's redressability here.

Whisenhunt: by striking down this order, schools will be free from this compulsory adherence to an unsafe practice. We know so many school districts feel this is important that they're prepared to take loss of funding if it means keeping people safe.

real, cognizable harm

Whisenhunt: there's a causal connection and redressability.

Turn to separation of powers - article 9 section 4

Establishes school districts to operate and control

Whisenhunt: When it comes to day to day matters, makes sense that local schools make decisions based on local concerns.

What's more local than community spread of infections during a pandemic? Spread differs greatly by population density. Florida is a diverse state.

Whisenhunt: Dense urban communities and wide open rural communities. Local School Districts know their communities better, should decide when masks are appropriate.

Plaintiffs count 3 alleges EO was arbitrary and capricious, let's understand what that means.

Whisenhunt: means no reasonable, logical basis for it. No logical argument that in response to emergency (pandemic), we need to make it an option to not be safe. That cannot be in furtherance of a compelling govt interest to keep kids safe, if it means giving option to be unsafe

Whisenhunt: There can be no rational inference to dictating from Tallahassee how local school boards can or cannot protect their students.

It defies all logic that in furtherance of public safety, we give people the option to create more danger

Whisenhunt: @GovRonDeSantis called Dr. Jay Bhattacharya directly, knowing his opinion already, invited him to roundtable discussion with others presenting only a single point of view.

Whisenhunt: What was played into evidence purportedly to save us time - despite little testimony from Bhattacharya - was some of the most ridiculous testimony you'd never hear in any court.

Judge: wouldn't have heard it in this court if you didn't stipulate it into evidence

Whisenhunt: sure, and maybe it was useful for a small focused purpose. It was not under oath, and can't be taken substantively as true.

During 1st day of this trial, Bean crossed Dr. Unnasch to explore his interpretations of Parents' Bill of Rights. Wanting legal conclusion

Whisenhunt: 3 coequal branches, people learn that in school. If we look at PBOR, it's cornerstone law in this case. Nowhere in it does it mention masks. That law was written, reviewed in committee, passed through, moved to floor.....(missed end)

Whisenhunt: DeSantis interpreted the law to either mean "health care" is masks, or he added masks to statute where it was not written.

So I'm not sure he invaded your job (judge) or the legislature's job, but I'm confident it wasn't HIS job.

Whisenhunt: Then DeSantis ordered that compliance. This is the stick that FEA case warned us against. It's what 1st DCA decision made clear the governor could not do.

Instead, he decided he can just go ahead and do it. Limited affirmatively somewhat of prior restraint....

Whisenhunt: ...but he took that away from them.

We don't live in a monarchy or dictatorship. And when elected official oversteps boundary of their authority, that redress is best brought before a court to limit that overreach.

That's what we're asking the court here to do

Whisenhunt: Does your honor have copy of DOH rule?

Judge Cooper: yes

Whisenhunt: Draw your attention to it - in none of the language of this DOH rule does it say anything but masks are effective. It doesn't say masks are not effective mitigating devices.

Whisenhunt: It's unambiguous that the reason for this DOH rule only occurs as a consequence of Gov's EO, revising recommendations to his interpretation of the law, with no public comment or other way to challenge it.

Fact thta governor waited, until last real conceivable moment

Whisenhunt: ...to push this through shows how disingenuos it was

We heard from Chancellor Oliva thta the discussion of masks had been going since the spring. They waited months and months, then at last minute declared some emergency.

Whisenhunt: we were deep into emergency of #DeltaVariant which came in June, when gov did nothing until end of July, when school boards would have no time to redress.

Suggestion of emergent circumstance at end of July would require a departure from reality

Whisenhunt: We ask court to rule governor's EO violated separation of powers, exceeded authority, violated home rule provisions by limiting school boards at whim of governor's preferences, was arrived at absurdly arbitrarily and capriciously, and has caused harm

Whisenhunt: So we're asking you to issue injunction of Gov's EO and reliant DOH rule as well. Reserve remaining time for rebuttal

Whisenhunt done, Mike Abel will do closing for defense.

Abel: Comments are 35-45 minutes.

Judge: 10 minute break.

/fin for now

Ok we're back.

DeSantis defense attorney Mike Abel begins closing argument.

Abel: a week ago during hearing on Motion to Dismiss, we told court it would hear from parents, experts and doctors who all held different views, testimony in this court would likely mirror intense political debate outside courtroom. Right now that debate is raging

Abel: so much so that actions of this court have become part of this debate. Amazing how closely what happened here mirrors political arena.

We heard from parents who deeply care about children but disagree on policy.

Abel: we also heard parents who want right to decide whether to cover kids faces. Rooted in constitutional principles. Plaintiffs called several doctors who advocated CDC and AAP policies. But even Dr. Unnasch acknowledged diff in opinions on masks. he concluded data inconclusive

Abel: Bhattacharya also supported that view, said evidence is inconclusive about whether masks prevent spread. Overwhelming studies show kids play limited role in spreading to adults and they themselves are at low risk even if infected.

Abel: Bhattacharya explained signficant difficulties kids have with breathing here. Some kids with special needs are harmed by mandatory masks.

Gov hosted 4 roundtables in total, we heard 1 of them, not sworn testimony, but similar to what we heard in this trial

Abel: Gov issued EO under his constitutional authority. This court heard from similar constituencies. Court heard conflicting evidence. These reports are not settled. And here we are, it's decision time for court. But unlike governor who leads a political branch...

Abel: ...we're in a court of law. We submit court run into binding precedent from appeals court, which says trial court cannot intrude upon discretionary decisions in these policy areas

1st DCA elaborated - education policy (masks), public health policy (DOH rule)

Abel: all of this, carefully balanced with existing fundamental rights of parents in accordance with state constitution and PBOR, to make health care decisions.

Chief Justice Roberts said safety of people should not be subject to 2nd guessing from judiciary

That's in SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF
CALIFORNIA, ET A

supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

Abel: turn now to several contentions from plaintiffs, 3 of them

Every plaintiff witness used exact same phrase. When it comes to mask mandates in schools, this isn't parent choice issue, it's public health issue. Plaintiffs say 1 or the other, public health or parent choice

Abel: it's not 1 or the other. Gov's EO reflects balance of those things, preference for in person learning. A lot needs to be balanced. He held 4 roundtables. We saw 1. Why? Because it shows in plain view 1 part of the policymaking process underlying the EO

Judge: looked to me like the decision had been made, and that was confirmation of the governor's position

Abel: i don't believe ..... that's what it showed

Abel: we heard from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, he's testified everywhere, he's published extensively.

Judge: he also testified in DeSantis v. FEA, correct? Never saw it, was it similar?

Abel: I'm not familiar enough with it

Judge: we'll go with what 1st district says

Abel: Bhattacharya told the court by the time he called the doctor, the governor had already read several studies, analyzed data.

Gov balanced health and safety, parents rights, etc. He promoted parent choice AND public health, thereafter directed DOE and DOH to adopt rules

Abel: so Dr. Bhattacharya testified yesterday, look at harms and benefits and make tough decisions

During that video, we peeked into window, faced w magnitude of data, unsettled and often conflicting, we expect our elected leaders to weigh information and make policy judgement

Abel: how to educate our children during pandemic? We want deliberate, thoughtful assessment. When plaintiffs said it's not parent choice it's public health, they were wrong. And they can't show the policy lacks rational basis.

Abel: one of main objections to policy is Florida doesn't follow @CDCgov or @AmerAcadPeds. No Floridian elected them. They give recommendations not policy.

Dr. Bhattacharya said CDC tries to reflect consensus often when there is no consensus. Gov weighed that and made decision

Abel: it's not unconstitutional for governor to do that. Finally, plaintiffs argue local school districts should make these decisions without shred of evidence. Whisenhunt purported to speak on behalf of local school districts.

Abel: This is the premier case in Florida on school masks. Despite that, they brought no school districts with them in this case. We didn't hear from them.

Earlier, court asked us to find agreement, and I think we found it. Every parent agreed parents know their own kids best

Abel: They also agreed they want to be in charge of their own kids health care decisions. Parents know kids better than teachers, doctors, school districts, CDC, AAP, other parents, every doctor, lawyers, judges.

Plaintiffs framed case as constitutional challenge

Abel: ...but at its heart, this is about policy. They are asking you to 2nd guess the political branches and supplement your own policy.

That policy has been fully resolved in the political branches of th egovernment.

Let's touch on legal issues...

Abel: Court cannot possibly adjudicate a claim for a state agency where that agency is not a party to the case.

Plaintiffs still haven't explained why DOH isn't part of this case. There's an emergency order filed in 4th district against DOH. Plaintiffs didn't do that.

Abel: the only thing limiting local school districts is an active rule by an agency thta isn't part of this case. Even if Judge rules against us, PBOR still exists, and emergency rule still exists.

Plaintiffs can't show redressability in all the other counts

Gov's EO achieved purpose - it directed other agencies to enact rules. That's done. Emergency rule promulgated by Florida DOH - they didn't sue. So by failing to include an indispensable party, they can't address that rule.

Abel: As to all of other plaintiffs claims, all requests should be denied. Gov had executive authority. Legislature couldn't have been more clear about right to abrogate Wiley (?)

Gov's EO comes into this court clothed with the presumption of constitutionality.

Abel: Gov's EO protects this fundamental right. Has a legitimate purpose.

Gonna summarize remaining counts

Judge: Is EO purpose to enforce the Parents' Bill of Rights? Is that your position?

Abel: to some extent, but more to it. EO addresses public health and education policy

Abel: I think its multifaceted. Took no action on its own, directed state agencies to act.

More to the EO than just asking DOH and DOE to enforce PBOR.

Judge: But isn't that what's happening now? DOE is enforcing PBOR?

Abel: Not exactly no. DOE is enforcing DOH emergency rule

Judge: but purpose of DOH emergency rule is to enforce the PBOR, right?

Abel: no, that's a limited reading of it. Includes protocols for controlling #COVID19 in public schools. Includes protocols for students with prior infection. Includes students may wear masks as mitigation

Abel: ...but must allow parents to opt-out. So DOH emergency rule is far broader than just enforcing PBOR.

Judge: i'm just reading from rule itself, it conforms to EO, and says it's incorporated into rule, and forces school districts to comply with PBOR, right?

Abel: yes but it does other things. Preamble is above, rule is below. Encourages safe & effective learning environment, safeguard rights of parents and children.

EO balances multiple policy interests. Focused on parent choice and public health, DOH rule does specific guidelines

Abel: a few counts now of complaint -

Count 3 is plaintiffs claim that EO violates Article 1 Section 9 as arbitrary and capricious

This claim is meritless. This was a heavy burden. Plaintiffs had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no set of facts....

Abel: to find it was arb and capr, court would have to ignore the roundtables, governor's meetings with experts, consultation, etc.

On face, EO provides rational basis for preventing local school districts from infringing on parents' rights

Abel: plaintiffs evidence only furthers argument that EO is on rational basis. Decision is left to parents. Grounded in Florida and federal law. Grounded in PBOR. Court must enter judgement for defendants on count 3.

Count 2 - claim that EO violates Article 9 Section 4

Abel: they argue state govt has trampled on rights of local school districts. Legislature delegated to DOH right to promulgate rules over health in schools.

State Board of Education is constitutional. Local school districts don't have plenary authority to enact policy.

Abel: it's clear legislature has plenary and pre-emptive authority.

Florida constitution creates hierarchy under which school district has authority, but legislature has higher authority. Sometimes it may overrule local districts.

Abel: Plaintiffs have not cited single case that flies in the face of that. All of state's actions were in accord with Florida constitution. DOH implemented rule. Legislature clearly delegated to DOH within state's education code the authority to control communicable diseases

Abel: DOH acted within authority. No amount of testimony can override that. State Board of Ed can enforce the rule, and the PBOR through discretionary authority under statutory enforcement powers. Plaintiffs havne't shown otherwise

Abel: finally in Count 1 - plaintiffs say EO violates Article 9 Section 1a, right to "safe, secure" public schools

Under no circumstances can "i know it when I see it" be a judicial standard.

Count 1 also implicates separation of powers.

Abel: judiciary violates separation of powers if it directs state agency to act in a particular manner

In enacting the PBOR, legislature codified rights of parents. Directing upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their minor children.

Abel: with inherent rights come inherent responsibilities.

Maybe most disappointing aspect of this case is when desire of parents to protect her freedom to choose what's best for her children is irrational. State govt trusts parents to make best decisions for their own kids

Abel: this includes plaintiffs witnesses/moms. But defense also trusts our witnesses/moms. All kids are unique. One size doesn't fit all. We can all agree better days are ahead. But we submit plaintiffs have not carried their burden on any claim.

Abel: separation of powers precludes court from wading into this political question. I request you rule for us.

Judge: am i required to enforce that law (?) under separation of powers doctrine?

Abel: plaintiffs have put before court the emergency rule and EO. But I don't follow

Judge: EO and DOH emergency rule reference that law, the PBOR.

Abel: so yes, of course, court should absolutely enforce the PBOR

Abel finishes. Whisenhunt says his rebuttal will be brief, but not 5 minutes

Judge breaks until 1:05 for plaintiffs' rebuttal.

/fin for now

Ok we're back for the closing argument rebuttal by plaintiffs' (families') attorney Craig Whisenhunt.

He said it would be brief.

Judge: ok start with explaining to me what my options are regarding Count 5, since you didn't sue FL DOH.

Whisenhunt: We're asking you to enjoin Dept of Ed from enforcing its rule

Can I?

Yes because DOH created rule, Dept of Ed just enforces it

Any cases?

No, fairly novel

Abel: Count 5 seeks declaratory judgment, Count 6 seeks injunction, but not against the rule

Judge: Count 6, i think I agree with you but haven't gotten there.

I'm trying to figure out contours of each count. I don't think there's any case law on this

Judge: I just have to see. Let me look at count 6 again.

I've started again reading DeSantis v. FEA for like 4th time.

Whisenhunt: Throughout course of this trial and Abel's argument, there seems to be recurrence of specific details being removed from context to bolster points

Whisenhunt: for instance Abel qualifying Dr. Unnasch's testimony.

Judge: My thoughts too

Whisenhunt: what he said was mischaracterizing Unnasch on whether masks are effective. His comment over disagreement wasn't IF masks were effective, it was to HOW effective they are.

(Judge reviewing Unnasch's testimony)

Whisenhunt: he said the 80% effectiveness of 2 people wearing masks was 96%

Judge: ok here's what my notes say ... "data inconclusive"

Whisenhunt: yes, again, that's about how effective they are.

Judge: i'll sit down and review my notes

Whisenhunt: also repeated defense effort to distort what this case is about. It's not to seek mandatory masks. it's about governor's overreach into responsility over school boards.

Abel says school districts aren't fighting that,but that ignores that 9 districts are defying him

Whisenhunt: they're weighing in as they can, but they just can't be a party to this here

Judge: any rational basis for governor's action?

Whisenhunt: sort of. Is there rational basis? maybe. But in context he signed EO? No, because it doesn't protect health of children

Judge: how do i talk about DOH rule? Haven't you (plaintiffs) hamstrung me in talking about them?

Whisenhunt: Where this becomes a quagmire is not in consequence any of us have done, it's a consequence of Wiley decision, subsequent statutory requirements, and rules promulgated

Judge: Legislative history in bill was to overrule the court in Wiley, i recognize, as Scalia did, that legislative intent and history means nothing if the law makes sense as written and is clear. I think that's what 1st district thinks too, not speaking for them but interpreting

Whisenhunt: I don't think court would need to have enforcement authority over DOH within this context, just that Dept of Ed can't enforce DOH rule that relied on EO.

Remainder of DOH rule is recycling of rule as it has always been. The only thing that changed this year is masks

Judge: does it make any difference whether I decide the rule is unconstitutional? Isn't what matters is whether dept of ed which is party in this case is enforcing that rule?

Judge: Abel says, haven't decided, but Abel says I can't rule on constitutionality of DOH rule....

Judge: ....because DOH is not party to case, so I can't rule anything over DOH, wouldn't be binding. That's Abel's argument.

Whisenhunt: yes but you can tell Dept of Ed they cannot impose on school boards an EO you've found to be unconstitutional

Judge: Again, I'm very well aware of what 1st District wrote in FEA case. What do I say if I rule in a way they see is against their order?

Whisenhunt: these are separate and distinct issues. One is not mandated, still school district freedom in FEA.

Whisenhunt: also issues in FEA didn't raise constitutional questions

Judge: governor had emergency authority back then, right? So issue is what authority does he have?

Whisenhunt: only that in constitution and has been delegated to him

Judge: he doesn't have authority under PBOR?

Whisenhunt: They passed a fairly clean bill, but it will raise a lot of ambiguity.

Judge: PBOR hasn't been challenged as unconstitutional by either party in this case, right?

Whisenhunt: no but it likely will in future

Whisenhunt: rather than having this EO, school district impose mandate, and local family should've sued under PBOR that rights were violated. Then judge would have to rule whether PBOR gives parents right to control over face masks

That's not what happened. Governor jumped ahead

Judge: Where are we on Count 1? Safe schools requirement? Is this case different than DeSantis v. FEA there?

Whisenhunt: Yes. There parties were asking court to make determination on whether schools were "safe enough" to reopen

Whisenhunt: argument there was whether schools could be reopened safely. Here it's whether schools not being able to issue mask mandates doesn't create an environment that's unavoidably unsafe

Judge: so you're saying that was bad, this is really bad?

Judge: Citizens v. Board of Regents, 2019, Fla. Supreme Court, cited Coalition vs. Chiles in 1996

Both cases on issue of whether provision requiring adequate and uniform public schools was provided for by legislature.

Judge: Overly simple, but court said reasonably high standard to say legislature had violated that requirement.

Whisenhunt: Reviewing that 1996 case quickly, but seems to hinge on whether amt of $ allocated to schools allowed them to be safe. I don't think that's this situation.

Judge: Discrimination based on race is given higher level of scrutiny than other areas. Is that the case in Florida, or am I too in the weeds?

Whisenhunt: no, we have tiered system in Florida. We're simply asking it should be enforced as written.

Judge: I'm not adopting Scalia's judicial philosophy, I'm just saying he was good at explaining that point of view (NB: that laws should be interpreted as written if they are clear)

Whisenhunt: What legislature put in law is about legislature and health care

Whisenhunt: I think that's what governor did -- he tried to shore up a legislative shortfall. He did an end run around whole system to get to a conclusion before anyone could get there.

Judge: I'm not a mind reader. I'm not sure motivation is a factor I can take into account

Whisenhunt: I think the governor is allowed to be wrong. But he's not allowed to invade the authorities of other branches or levels of govt without explicit authority to do so. He can say sky is purple, believe it, and surround himself with people who say it.

Judge: I'm colorblind so I might agree with him. I'm just struggling with all these issues. This case presents a lot of complicated legal issues. I'm not a big note taker but I took a lot of notes in this case. I'm still wrestling with pretty much all the issues.

Judge: this case represents issues that are important to a lot of people. I have to keep reminding myself what my job is and keep focused on that. I think I know what that is, read every appellate decision more than once that's applicable, looked at rule, statute, exhibits

Judge: ...extensively. Just gonna take me sitting down with pen and legal pad to formulate my thinking on this issue. Every minute with you is 1 less minute figuring out where I am on these issues, but happy to do it

Whisenhunt: ok just a few more. I wanna speak specifically to Dr. Bhattacharya. He was largely unknown outside those (?) small circles until he started writing about the pandemic

But one thing he said is that mind could be changed, but it would necessitate high quality data

Implication from that is that he's reasonable.

Judge: Seems like his point is he wants high-quality data showing masking was effective. Not overly simplifying but he's saying he doesn't think studies support conclusion masks limit risk of catching/transmitting #COVID

Whisenhunt: Answer seems to be that masks don't protect the wearer as much as protect everyone else, that's the reason why everyone wearing them vs. some voluntarily not wearing makes sense.

Hard to say this study is the thing we're gonna have everyone rely on, when at the time the COVID rate in Denmark was 2%

Same thing with Brown Study by @ProfEmilyOster, governor cites it for exact principle it says you should NOT use it for

Judge: when you say arbitrary and capricious, do you equate with no rational basis.

Whisenhunt: Seems to be something 'illogical'

Judge: or without authority?

Whisenhunt: yes

Whisenhunt: if we reorganize Florida Statutes, we've created a confusing network of laws.

Judge: well the law is complicated

Whisenhunt: sure, everyone would do it if it wasn't

Judge: I keep looking at what i've missed. Is there an argument and counterargument

Whisenhunt: at some point when you're reconciling these things, if you want further info from parties in writing, i'm sure Abel will agree

Judge: I think it's fine, lawyers have done good job verbally and in writing describing positions in this case.

Judge: I could probably make arguments for either side, that's a function that both sides have made good arguments.

Whisenhunt: Two more things - we have rules about parents sending things in with nuts, etc. We routinely restrict rights in schools to protect others.

Whisenhunt: that's never been an issue. There's always been understanding when you're in a public space or school, you give up some of your rights. Like a nut-free class or school. You don't always have autonomy. Predicate is there for schools to do exactly this thing

Whisenhunt: Abel concluded by saying "better days ahead." I feel like if we don't let school districts respond to local crises, he's almost certainly going to be wrong.

Judge: Can't guarantee you all will agree with me, but I'll do my best. Will see you all I think at 10am

Judge: My order is going to be a verbal order. I hope and expect whoever drafts the order gives me a quick turnaround to give me access to what I say specifically, that would help. I don't know if I'd be as detailed with writing an order, because that would take me 2-3 weeks

I often do verbal orders, not unique to this case, it's a much quicker way to get a ruling so court can continue its process. I may have citations in the order, record citations, some may be footnotes, so whoever gets opportunity to write an order, I don't have pride of structure

Judge: For you to use footnotes, etc. I will hope it will be pretty close. I just advise both sides. You don't have to do it, it's your call. This is not the type of case where there needs to be undone business leftover.

Judge: Appreciate effort of all lawyers, witnesses, concerns of people sending me emails on one side or the other, I read them for review purposes to make sure there's nothing to be concerned about, but I don't rule on them of course. There's a level of interest around the state

Judge: Thank you to everybody.

Adjourned until tomorrow morning at...zoom cut off!

I think it's 10am, that's what he said earlier. I will confirm and report back here later.

/fin for today

https://twitter.com/EvanDonovan/status/1431255761955459086?s=20