On Tuesday Dershowitz and three other attorneys filed suit against the DOJ in a Minnesota federal court.
“Denied,” he wrote in his ruling, while criticizing the attorneys’ work, presumably including Dershowitz’s.
“Plaintiffs,” Judge Tostrud wrote, “have not served Defendants [Garland and Wray] with the Complaint, or at least Plaintiffs have not yet filed any proof of service.”
That was just the first slap.
Lindell’s attorneys, including Dershowitz, had said the seizure of Lindell’s phone constituted an “emergency,” and filed a request for a temporary restraining order.
Judge Tostrud spent the next several pages of his Thursday order explaining all the technical and legal reasons why the motion requesting Lindell’s phone be returned were faulty or just wrong.
Among them: “A temporary restraining order is an ‘extraordinary remedy.’”
Other legalese include, “The request does not comply with Rule 65(b),” “With respect to subparagraph (b)(1)(B), however, Plaintiffs’ attorney filed no certification,” and “Plaintiffs do not discuss the Rule or cite any authority that might explain why the cellphone’s return is appropriate under the Rule.”
Other damning language includes, “But that’s it,” “that’s understating things,” and “it would be a stretch to grant relief.”
Then there’s this one: “It is a familiar rule that courts of equity do not ordinarily restrain criminal prosecutions.”
Top national security attorney Brad Moss referred to that as he mocked Dershowitz, saying, “nice lawyering, sir.”
#WeProtest #Protest #CivilLiberty #CivilLiberties #Petition