Lawyer Takes Order Blocking DOGE from Treasury Dept. APART Point-By-Point in KICK-BUTT Thread – Twitchy
As readers know, Judge TRO (temporary restriction) issued to prevent DOGE from accessing the Ministry of Treasury data. It seems as if strong people have a lot to hide that they do not want to know the Americans.
We started to see a pattern here.
Lawyer Tom Reigns was more than happy to dismantle this “demand” on a subject full of receipt.
Take a look:
Lawyer’s point of view on the TRO court prevents Trump Doge employees to access the treasury dataRealdonaldtrump bring Elonmusk Under Under Organized USDs – US DOGE service. As it was recorded elsewhere, this was clearly legal and this procedure was not … pic.twitter.com/r9y1cbe1b
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
… challenged. What is stabbed is Doge employees who have access to Treasury Data systems.
Yesterday, a comprehensive complaint was submitted before Obama was appointed to the judge in New York. 60 pages – somewhat complicated – were submitted – the complaint and TRT yesterday, and the American boycott judge Paul Polmire was able to fully examine this complaint and grant TRO on the same night. While granting TRO on the same day, it is impressive that he was able to search and control such a complex complaint in this short period of time.
The appointed Obama. naturally.
When a complaint is filed in the court, the complaint filed some allegations, claims facts to support these allegations, then request relief. In the event of this complaint, the relief application guarantees a request for TRO (temporary restriction order) for the subject … pic.twitter.com/zlvmxf5QE7
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
… from the complaint. In other words, they requested that Trump and Doug be banned from checking the Ministry of Treasury data.
Now, why do they want to prevent Duj from checking the cabinet?
The complaint can be found in: https://t.co/p2Qs0jowf
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
TRO will be found in: https://t.co/01vdqtn62z
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
I like it when people bring their receipts.
He continues to progress.
Let’s talk about TO. In this case, it appears that the judge issued a ruling without a chance to respond to the defendants. This can happen with TT but it is somewhat unusual for TRO about a problem like this. If there is a problem with life/safety (and the woman or a child who is assaulted) …
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
… often, TROS are issues without a chance to respond, but the allegations of this complaint do not prove that this type of serious or inevitable damage until one believes that the judge will give the president an opportunity to respond.
right? Where is the danger? Do you think the restricted matter, you think local issues, do you know?
This is strange.
It is also interesting that there is a 4 -page grant of TRO on this complex complaint. There is no literally analysis, and the judge simply adopted all the results of the plaintiffs and the analysis. In light of the fact that this case was very complicated, judicial respect is in debt … pic.twitter.com/swq7znpwej
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
… all branches of the joint government (including the executive authority), and the lack of clear damage (only allegations that are not supported by potential harm), and the political appearance of this issue, at least one expects some indications that the judge did more research more than just reading And adopts the position of the plaintiff (I do not say that this is all he did and may have experience/experience in this but still … this was a quick judgment in a big case).
The judge appears to put a policy for us.
It should also be noted that there is nothing in this case allegedly giving Time to respond to a “irreplaceable damage”. This is the standard that Scotus set in Winter V. Natural Resources Countil – The only case mentioned in this entire order. Identification card … pic.twitter.com/mcmxlqlwj
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
… argues that this TRT is incorrectly – this type of initial order requires a high level and there is no analysis that supports the grant. Frankly, this seems a bit political.
Scotus is clear in the winter when they mention: “The issuance of a preliminary judicial order depends only on the possibility of an irreparable damage that is not in line with our description of restraint relief as an unusual treatment that may be granted only on a clear show that the plaintiff qualifies this relief. Mazurek V. Armstrong 520 US968, 972 (PER CURIAM).
a little? Oh oh.
This leads to the issue of standing. Several cases have been presented over the years on the basis of standing. Here the states claim all kinds of potential injuries, but they were not claimed and actual wounds. The courts require injuries to be concrete and privacy. For example in … pic.twitter.com/jhim2tqoqp
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
His position continues:
The court confirmed that Transnion LLC V. Ramirez, 594 US 413, the court repeated that only prosecutors who have been hurt by the violation of the legal defendant may be paid in the Federal Court. There are allegations of damage that may occur here but nothing can be clarified – in my opinion – at this point.
There is a ton for permanent analysis, but I will think about offering it at this stage as part of the response.
Note that he is analyzing some of this, but we did not include it in this piece; Everything on X, linked to this topic.
Then we have the charges themselves. they:
1. Violation of APA 706 (2) – bypassing the legal authority
2. Violation of APA 706 (2) (a) – unlike the law
3. Violation of APA 706 (2) (a) – arbitrary and volatile
4. Ultra Vires (this means that there is a procedure without law …– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
It continues after:
… authority)
5. Violation of the separation of powers – rape of the legislative authority
6. Violation of the condition Cane
Give us a frightening break.
In the end, this issue is political. The best argument they have is to count 2, but I think one is also discussed. The fact that the court issued TRO without an opportunity to respond to this very political. Moreover, I would like to know how this judge will justify …
– Tom Reigns (@renztom) February 8, 2025
It continues after:
… If he actually he has to write an analysis of his ruling … Of course, no one wants to talk about the accountability of the judges, not regardless of whether their rulings raise political activity.
Oh, we are more happy to hold judges.
=================================================== ==========================
Related to:
=================================================== ==========================
