AZL, how does it work at the appellate level for the DT now? Now we're into more of the traditional appeal situation vs special actions. Say KN and JW want to take these 17 smackdowns and write up for each one how they think the judge was off her rocker and they should overrule her. How does it work?
- Do they file 17 different appeals? Do they file 1 with everything? Or do they pick a few that they think they have the best shot at?
- Does each appeal consist of only some relatively small amount of paperwork and copies of transcripts and exhibits?
- Do they also need to cite relevant settled case law to back their argument up?
- Ignoring stays, can the COA just refuse to hear the appeal, letting the lower court ruling stand, or do they have to issue more than that in each case?
- If there are to be oral arguments, I presume they have to be short and to the point, like the earlier ones. (Those were all short, but not necessarily all to the point haha.)
- What is the COA's take going in? Is their attitude along the lines of "We've got what you sent and we've read the judge's decision. You have 15 minutes to convince us that her logic was flawed."
Thanks - you can see what I'm getting at. It seems like the same sorts of things that a trial like this encourages from the defense: obfuscation, inept/lying witnesses, arguments all over the map/contradictory, time-wasting, interrupting the other party endlessly, etc. all are exactly the wrong approach to use on appeal. I suppose that's why there are people like you who specialize in appeals - you don't have to change gears for appeals since you operate in the right gear already. It might be a struggle for you to handle a normal case in a regular court for similar reasons - it's just a different way of operating.