Link to petition on Venn Aryan’s site
here.
He still doesn’t get it, does he? Let’s cut to the chase: He’s trying to get an injunction against a non-party. Won’t work. No way.
But on to the other funnies:
As authority in support of his petition for injunction, he hangs his hat on a Georgia statutory cite authorizing the reviewing court to issue a stay on appeal. So why isn’t this a stay? Well, a stay won’t accomplish anything, will it? It’d just preserve the status quo.
OK, I get that. But then how is the statutory authorization for a stay in any way relevant? (Hint: It ain’t.) Nevertheless, he proceeds to conflate a stay with an injunction. (Wrong: A stay can issue “for good cause shown"; an injunction involves the familiar four-prong test.)
1.
Liklihood of Success on the Merits. Venn Aryan proceeds to misstate the issue so badly that it borders on unethical lack of candor to the court. According to learned counsel, the only issue is whether or not Georgia will reject a so-called "Supreme Court precedent" (i.e.,
Minor v. Happersett). It must be me, but I could have sworn that the only issue on appeal is a jurisdictional interpretation of Georgia statutes as to whether the challenge was applicable in a PPP in the first place. At what point in her ruling did Judge Wright overturn
Minor? Liar, liar, pants on fire!
[Adding: Judge Wright's dismissal had the effect of voiding Malihi's opinion
ab initio. Therefore, Venn Aryan has no legal basis whatsoever for attacking Malihi's adoption of the holdings in
Ankeny. That's simply not on the table.]
2.
Irreparable Injury. Typical birfer bullshit about “right to live in a Constitutional Republic.” Venn Aryan’s bald assertion that there is no other remedy at law is belied by many other steps ahead in the election process, culminating with Congress’s ability to reject the results of the electoral college. IMO, this prong (sometimes said to be the most important for injunctive relief) is fatally FUBARed.
3.
Balance of Equities. Totally laughable. Acccording to Venn Aryan an injunction would “cause minimal, arguably zero, harm” to Obama. And that’s because if the injunction is issued in error, there’s plenty of time to work things out. WTF? Then why does he think he needs an injunction? Well, because he’s really asking the court for something in the nature of a temporary advisory opinion, and he all but admits it, albeit accidentally. (If you think there’s no such thing as a temporary advisory opinion, you’d be right.) EPIC FAIL!
4.
Public Interest. Now see if you can follow me on this: According to Venn Aryan, it’s in the public interest to issue an advisory opinion now even if it has to be changed later. That’s right, it’s in the public interest to play ping-pong with the “rule of law”. This has got to be one of the most frivolous arguments ever made by a putative “real lawyer.”
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. His PHV motion was denied by the trial court. Where does he get off waltzing in and filing this P.O.S. with the GA Supremes? (BTW, his petition is signed only by Venn Aryan, using his Tenn. Bar number.)
Edit: There's another purported link on his site to an "Application for Review" or something of that ilk. The trouble is, the link gets a 404. It is possible, I suppose, that he's submitted some sort of companion document in which he moves for PHV admission. Who knows?
Login
Register
FAQ
No PHV for you
]