- Joined
- May 21, 2022
- Messages
- 2,367
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Points
- 168
I am sure others are curious like I am, but it's like listening to church mice when it comes to the status of the Texas frame and receiver injunction that was vacated by the Supreme Court in October. So, I looked it up. There are a couple of things to note, the District Court issued an order to the parties to keep the court apprised on whether the Defendant (ATF/DOJ) is going to ask the Supreme Court to rule or take the case up. The district court issued that order on Jan 5 about a month ago. The text of which is copied and pasted below.
Further, I noticed an interesting entry in the docket record. The attorney for Polymer 80 has withdrawn from the case as of late December. His application to withdraw and the subsequent order releasing the attorney from representation in the case followed a few days later. Unlike the other orders and applications in the docket record, this one is not public. You can pay a fee to see what it says, but I did not do so.
The withdrawal may not be a good sign. Not trying to read too much into it, but if you couple it with all the sales that P80 has had and the lack of products, I certainly hope they haven't put them out of business. BTW, this is total speculation from me, but it is odd that an attorney withdraws after winning an injunction and on the eve of a possible appeal to the Supreme Court by the ATF. I do believe the deadline for asking for Certiorari seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court is 90 days. I don't know when that clock started ticking, but it could be from when the Order below was released. Perhaps a more knowledgeable person like an attorney may chime in here about the deadlines. One can be sure the ATF will seek to drag this out for however long they can. I did read their Court replies and their arguments are all procedural lawyer gibberish.
Two Order summaries are listed below from this court listener link below. When reviewing the orders, the ATF are the defendants.
Listener Linl:
COURT ORDER:
STATUS REPORT ORDER The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision on the Summary and Final Judgment in this case. See VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023). In light of that decision, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and provide a joint report regarding the status of this case and how the parties intend to proceed.
See Status Report Order, ECF No.273. The parties accordingly filed their joint report on December 4, 2023. See Joint Status Report, ECF No.274. Having reviewed the joint report and applicable law, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a status report notifying the Court if and when they file a petition for writ of certiorari (or seek any other form of review) with the Supreme Court of the United States on this case, or when the time for seeking any such review has expired, whichever occurs first. SO ORDEREDon this 5th dayof January, 2024.
Polymer 80 attorney withdrawal summary
Jan 5, 2024
ORDER granting 275 ...it is ORDERED that Marc A. Nardone be withdrawn as counsel of record for Polymer80, Inc. in the above-captioned case. Attorney Marc A Nardone terminated (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 1/5/2024) (wxc) (Entered: 01/08/2024)
Further, I noticed an interesting entry in the docket record. The attorney for Polymer 80 has withdrawn from the case as of late December. His application to withdraw and the subsequent order releasing the attorney from representation in the case followed a few days later. Unlike the other orders and applications in the docket record, this one is not public. You can pay a fee to see what it says, but I did not do so.
The withdrawal may not be a good sign. Not trying to read too much into it, but if you couple it with all the sales that P80 has had and the lack of products, I certainly hope they haven't put them out of business. BTW, this is total speculation from me, but it is odd that an attorney withdraws after winning an injunction and on the eve of a possible appeal to the Supreme Court by the ATF. I do believe the deadline for asking for Certiorari seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court is 90 days. I don't know when that clock started ticking, but it could be from when the Order below was released. Perhaps a more knowledgeable person like an attorney may chime in here about the deadlines. One can be sure the ATF will seek to drag this out for however long they can. I did read their Court replies and their arguments are all procedural lawyer gibberish.
Two Order summaries are listed below from this court listener link below. When reviewing the orders, the ATF are the defendants.
Listener Linl:
COURT ORDER:
https://ia801508.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145.277.0.pdf
STATUS REPORT ORDER The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision on the Summary and Final Judgment in this case. See VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023). In light of that decision, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and provide a joint report regarding the status of this case and how the parties intend to proceed.
See Status Report Order, ECF No.273. The parties accordingly filed their joint report on December 4, 2023. See Joint Status Report, ECF No.274. Having reviewed the joint report and applicable law, the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a status report notifying the Court if and when they file a petition for writ of certiorari (or seek any other form of review) with the Supreme Court of the United States on this case, or when the time for seeking any such review has expired, whichever occurs first. SO ORDEREDon this 5th dayof January, 2024.
Polymer 80 attorney withdrawal summary
Jan 5, 2024
ORDER granting 275 ...it is ORDERED that Marc A. Nardone be withdrawn as counsel of record for Polymer80, Inc. in the above-captioned case. Attorney Marc A Nardone terminated (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 1/5/2024) (wxc) (Entered: 01/08/2024)
