[philman_36]

First off, my apologies for earlier. Nobody likes being played the fool and too many folks have done just that with "Internet documents" in the past. I wouldn't put it past somebody to attribute something to any of the lawyers involved that they didn't write.

Having said that, beyond a few things like typos and poor word choice I would say it was pretty concise.
I don't think it'll change much, but who knows. I expect the response will be that the things she mentioned would be considered in the review process and that she will be notified later on the conclusion reached.

I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on TV either so your mileage may vary.

I did rather like her asking about how Malihi could use Ankeny when it was never presented.

[sometime lurker]

Apology accepted; I can certainly respect verifying the facts.

I have a feeling this could be a repeat of the Judge Land situation. Orly insulting the court in her appeal isn’t a great way to go, but I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure of the consequences.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on TV either so your mileage may vary. I did rather like her asking about how Malihi could use Ankeny when it was never presented.

A judge is not allowed to consider evidence that was not presented at the hearing, but he is allowed to do his own research on the law and to cite any cases he finds.