PRAY TO HIGH HEAVEN and FIGHT LIKE HELL!!!
Great news...
I believe we will win Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada is just icing on our delicious re-election cake.
I belive that this is nothing more than a stalling tactic by the lower court.
“”However, the court said that the appeal could only proceed if Wood could address certain jurisdictional issues.””
The goal is to get this to SCOTUS ASAP
Is this separate of Sydney’s?
More good news.. One state at a time. If he takes GA and PA how much more will be needed for 270. Maybe just Michigan or Wisconsin. Or will he need both of them..
What is unsettling to me is that Judges may be ruling out of fear for their lives and those of their families. This sort of thing must be addressed and appropriate laws passed with very, very strict penalties as a way to deter the creeps.
Can he substantively address these two jurisdictional issues? Yes, he may have good arguments, but he hast to jump through these hoops. Otherwise, the best case the world was to get thrown out.
Starting to look like the democrats can’t put the fire out they started under their huge biomass container they started.
God is working through the good people like Lin Wood, Sidney Powell and Donald Trump.
A cupple of mizspelled wurds? Dat’s all they gott?
Versus the greatest election fraud in the history of mankind?
Go away children.
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, 2020Ray S. Smith III
Smith & Liss LLC
5 CONCOURSE PKWY NE STE 2600
ATLANTA, GA 30328-6104Appeal Number: 20-14418-RR
Case Style: L. Lin Wood, Jr. v. Brad Raffensperger, et al
District Court Docket No: 1:20-cv-04651-SDGNOTICE 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).