@gabrielmalor you are correct. As usual. This is outrageous.
-
-
Replying to @CJayMahoney
@CJayMahoney There is some suggestion that FRCP 70(a) allows the judge to order this. I don't know. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_70 …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielmalor
@gabrielmalor im not a lawyer, but I have to assume that the "other person to act" has to have the independ. legal auth. to do so. (??!)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CJayMahoney
@CJayMahoney I don't think that's truuue.... It's kinda blowing my mind.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielmalor
@gabrielmalor then I think maybe such FRCP violates due process and is unconstitutional maybe.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CJayMahoney
@CJayMahoney Judges can just commandeer third parties to act as government officials? I feel like there's a solution to the IRS in sight...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @CJayMahoney
@CJayMahoney@gabrielmalor The fact that the named act is conveying land does suggest the rule includes governmental functions. But, yeah.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@CJayMahoney@gabrielmalor I'm now questioning whether a prelim injunction falls under Rule 70. Q is whether a PI is a "judgment"?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@jack_o_bee4u @CJayMahoney @gabrielmalor Yup! Thanks!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.