Appeals Court Grants Expedited Review Over Lin Wood’s Election Lawsuit in Georgia

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted Lin Wood’s emergency motion seeking an emergency review of a lower court’s decision that had rejected his efforts to delay the vote certification in Georgia. However, the court said that the appeal could only proceed if Wood could address certain jurisdictional issues.

Wood, an attorney with Trump’s reelection campaign, announced on Twitter, “Thanksgiving Eve News! 11th Circuit granted my Emergency Motion for Expedited Review of lawsuit challenging validity of GA election procedure.

“We The People delivered a historic landslide win for [President Donald Trump] in GA & nationally. We The People will not allow it be stolen.”

The appellate court presented Wood with two questions about jurisdiction (pdf): “Please address whether the district court’s November 20, 2020 order denying the ‘Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order’ is immediately appealable,” and “Please also address whether, and to what extent, any challenge to the denial of the requests for relief in the ‘Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order’ is now moot.”

The appellate court presented Wood with two questions about jurisdiction (pdf): “Please address whether the district court’s November 20, 2020 order denying the ‘Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order’ is immediately appealable,” and “Please also address whether, and to what extent, any challenge to the denial of the requests for relief in the ‘Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order’ is now moot.”

Sidney Powell may get something like this as well. The matters of jurisdiction, standing, and laches must be addressed. Failure on the procedural issues means the merits are not considered.

These actions have been brought as original matters in Federal court. There is no appeal of a state court decision.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20417122/lin-wood-jurisdiction.pdf

November 25, 2020
Ray S. Smith III
Smith & Liss LLC
5 CONCOURSE PKWY NE STE 2600
ATLANTA, GA 30328-6104
Appeal Number: 20-14418-RR
Case Style: L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Raffensperger, et al
District Court Docket No: 1:20-cv-04651-SDG
NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED: November 24, 2020
After review of the district court docket entries, order and/or judgment appealed from, and the notice of appeal, it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal. If it is determined that this court is without jurisdiction, this appeal will be dismissed.
The parties are requested to simultaneously advise the court in writing within six (6) days 9am Tuesday December 1st from the date of this letter of their position regarding the jurisdictional question(s) set forth on the attached page. Counsel must submit their response electronically, and do not need to provide paper copies. The responses must include a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement as described in Fed.R.App.P. 26.1 and the corresponding circuit rules. Requests for extensions of time to file a response are disfavored.
After six (6) days, this court will consider any response(s) filed and any portion of the record that may be required to resolve the jurisdictional issue(s). Please note that the issuance of a jurisdictional question does not stay the time for filing appellant's briefs otherwise provided by 11th Cir. R. 31-1.
Counsel who wish to participate in this appeal must complete and return an appearance form within fourteen (14) days. Appearance of Counsel Form are available on the Internet at www.ca11.uscourts.gov. The clerk may not process filings from an attorney until that attorney files an appearance form. See 11th Cir. R. 46-6.
Sincerely, DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court Reply to: Regina A. Veals-Gillis, RR
Phone #: (404) 335-6163 Enclosure(s) JUR-1 Resp reqd JQ
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 20-14418
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS
1) Please address whether the district court's November 20, 2020 order denying the “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” is immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions”); AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc'ns, Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004) (a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) ruling may be appealable as an interlocutory injunction order when “three conditions are satisfied: (1) the duration of the relief sought or granted exceeds that allowed by a TRO ([14] days), (2) the notice and hearing sought or afforded suggest that the relief sought was a preliminary injunction, and (3) the requested relief seeks to change the status quo”); see also Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen a grant or denial of a [TRO] might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence, and can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal, we may exercise appellate jurisdiction.” (quotation marks omitted)); Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 899-900 (11th Cir. 1995) (“TRO rulings, however, are subject to appeal as interlocutory injunction orders if the appellant can disprove the general presumption that no irreparable harm exists.”); McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1473 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[I]t has been suggested that if the TRO goes beyond simply preserving the opportunity to grant affirmative relief and actually grants affirmative relief, an appeal may be taken.” (quotation marks omitted)).
2) Please also address whether, and to what extent, any challenge to the denial of the requests for relief in the “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” is now moot. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to “cases” and “controversies,” a case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy as to which a court can give meaningful relief, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear cases that are moot); Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114, 1118 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that an appeal is moot where it is “impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party”); see also Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. v. Commc'n Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 860 F.2d 1022, 1023 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting three exceptions to the mootness doctrine).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.