storage.courtlistener.com
Opposition/Response to Motion – #96 in Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War (N.D. Cal., 3:26-cv-01996) – CourtListener.com
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION to Stay Pursuant to Section 705 ) filed byPaul S. Atkins, Scott Bessent, Frank J. Bisigano, Ma...
![10 The Defendants suggested, at the motions hearing, that on Beatty’s framing of her
Article III injury, she entirely discharged her duty merely by filing the present lawsuit. As a
result, they suggested the case may already be moot. See Mot. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 44, at 51:10–
18 (“[I]f the theory is she must sue to extinguish her liability, then we don’t know why she
would be entitled to anything more. Right? By . . . coming to federal court and opposing in that
way, we think that’s [in tension] with the idea that standing needs to remain throughout the case .
. . Because if the idea is you have to file a lawsuit or else I’m going to potentially be sued, well
the congresswoman filed a lawsuit.”). This line of argument ignores Beatty’s more fundamental
obligation to administer the trust in accordance with its terms and protect the trust res. Playing
courthouse “ding dong ditch” can hardly be said to satisfy these legal obligations.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bfdiyietterineb3cvu3ddco/bafkreiaas5qclqpilfedexxn5wxcaylho3rdrnpzkmrigvsxzxti5le4ue)
![With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls
within that category.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/bafkreibhhdcymq4dbg2pzqxsntooytqznjfgrztweju4jb5kdbqpsy6okq)
![Partial Image text:
To this day, Ms. Martinez is described as a “domestic terrorist” who “rammed
federal agents with [her] vehicle[]” on the website of the Department of Homeland
Security. (Ex. 1, 1-22-26 Screenshot from Department of Homeland Security website,
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/04/update-dhs-deploys-special-operations-after-
multiple-violent-attacks-federal-law). Similarly, the Director of the FBI, Kash Patel,
maintains a post on “X” (formerly Twitter) where he “reposted” a claim stating:
BREAKING: This is the video where Marimar Martinez, aka La Maggie,
rammed a white DHS vehicle who had their emergency lights on.
Another DHS black SUV then attempts to ram Marimar's SUV from
behind. One DHS agent is on the passenger side firing shots. Democrats
are insane.
(Ex. 2, 1-22-26 Screenshot from FBI Director Kash Patel’s X account,
https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1975001981828931752?lang=en). The
accompanying video that Director Patel claims shows Ms. Martinez “ramm[ing] a
white DHS vehicle” is of an entirely unrelated incident. Neither Ms. Martinez nor her
vehicle appears in the video and has no apparent connection to the events depicted. The FBI director’s mistake was even acknowledged by Assistant Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, in her own post on X. (Ex.
3, 1-23-26 Screenshot from Tricia McLaughlin’s X account,
https://x.com/TriciaOhio/status/1974942178716610568). Remarkably, Assistant
Secretary McLaughlin’s post nonetheless still implies that Ms. Martinez, whom the
Assistant Secretary refers to as “’La Maggie’” committed “ANOTHER [different]
vehicular assault” against DHS officers. (Ex. 3). The post remains viewable online.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7422wlmkminudypjv6cywlzl/bafkreifgbyn3x4qjifkcae45upkwpo6rloigdzz3opqzow5dxof54ofjg4)
