Eugene Volokh provides us this splendid example of how not to write a petition for rehearing, which he got from Paul Milligan at Lowering the Bar.
The petition states that the court failed to address the key issues. Okay, I've seen that before. Then there is this:
The petition states that the court failed to address the key issues. Okay, I've seen that before. Then there is this:
As stated earlier, the Court will address these issues, or there will be civil unrest. Civil unrest that is going to start at the doorsteps of the slime ball, piece of <expletive> judges that thought they were going to violate the constitutional rights of the innocent and poor with impunity.
I won't quote the line at the end, where the prayer for relief usually
goes, because after the deleting the expletives there is practically
nothing left.
And the Ninth Circuit's reaction? "Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER): Hupp's petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further filings will be accepted in this closed case."
The disaffected party, Mr. Paul Hupp, now wants to petition for certiorari, of course. In application 10A320, he asked Justice Kennedy for an extension of time, and he actually got it, in part. I assume the extension application was written in somewhat more restrained tones.
And the Ninth Circuit's reaction? "Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER): Hupp's petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further filings will be accepted in this closed case."
The disaffected party, Mr. Paul Hupp, now wants to petition for certiorari, of course. In application 10A320, he asked Justice Kennedy for an extension of time, and he actually got it, in part. I assume the extension application was written in somewhat more restrained tones.
Leave a comment