iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 4m

Friend, the hearing isn’t even over yet.

000

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 15m

And now she has rectified that error by issuing a TRO. She *absoutely* should have done it earlier, as she acknowledged today on the record.

150

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 19m

Maybe, if they can show standing

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 21m

The hearing isn’t even over yet.

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 27m

That punishment requires findings of fact, and those findings of fact require inquiry. That inquiry is *what is currently happening*

060

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 28m

She’s literally in the middle of a hearing about it

100

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 31m

She only has jurisdiction over parties

120

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 38m

Sure. She’s criticizing herself for it, too, and she has now rectified the error.

130

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 41m

I dunno, maybe she’ll hold a factfinding hearing in which she hales witnesses into court in real time to determine who, precisely, knew what when, as is required under the law to issue the very sanctions you contemplate

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 42m

This hearing — which isn’t over — is doing the factfinding necessary to throw violators in jail

140

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 45m

There’s a high bar for contempt. Not just for the DOJ, either.

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 46m

Based on the facts before the court, which specific individuals can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have violated a court order, and by what conduct?

000

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 47m

She’s doing the inquiry to discover precisely who lied *right now.* That’s what this hearing, which is ongoing, is about.

0140

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 48m

He’s represented by DOJ if he’s being questioned in his official capacity. As to whether or not he should retain qualified independent counsel? I couldn’t say; I’m not authorized to give legal advice.

120

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 49m

I have never seen that happen, ever. Especially not on a federal holiday

3130

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 49m

The hearing isn’t even over yet

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 50m

What was the exact wording of the order she gave? I ask because the judge herself says that she did not previously enter an order.

030

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 53m

How is holding a factfinding hearing at breakneck speed while hauling witnesses to court in real time not “actually doing something”

2190

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 56m

I mean the hearing *literally isn’t even over yet*

1110

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 56m

She didn’t enter an order. As she has acknowledged, that was a mistake which she now regrets and has rectified. Now she’s doing the factfinding necessary to establish whether she can hold someone in contempt for their conduct thus far and, if so, who.

This hearing is literally one of the steps necessary to make that happen. This is like yelling at the surgeon for not doing anything while they are in the act of scrubbing in.

3320

Clearly not — but would you prefer that she just leap straight to the findings while ignoring due process and thereby make the ruling instantly reversible on appeal?

140

You know, *like the judge did today and will continue to do tomorrow.*

110

The court has to do the necessary factfinding to find that the party knowingly and unambiguously violated a clear court order. This will often involve questioning parties as to their understanding of the order, questioning witnesses to determine who made which decisions under what knowledge, etc.

110

Hey quick question: do you know what steps are necessary to put someone’s butt in jail for contempt?

120

I have an idea: how about she enters a formal order and engages in intensive and high-speed fact finding, including questioning witnesses in live testimony, to discover exactly who gave which orders and exactly who is lying now?

052

Yeah. Also, this hearing isn’t over, it’s continuing tomorrow.

141

Well, answer me this: what judicial court order was known to be unambiguously violated prior to the commencement of today’s hearing, and who was known to have unambiguously violated it, based on evidence before the court?

060

Yeah, nah. A verbal order from a judge is every bit as binding as a written one.

050

It doesn’t have to be written, but it does have to be stated to be an order. I haven’t seen the transcript of the hearing in this case — I don’t know if it’s available even — but from what I understand from the commentary, it was phrased as a firm expectation + a promise from DOJ to abide by it.

What kind of enforcement are you contemplating? Contempt?

Well, she might be able to. That remains to be seen.

111

It was expressly not a verbal order in this case, unlike in the Boasberg contempt situation.

130

You need to be able to make a finding of criminal contempt under the law first.

071

It's rare IME for them to even mention it.

161

Can't hold someone in contempt if they haven't violated a court order, and at the time the trees were cut down, the judge had not yet entered a formal order.

180

In this hearing, the court was literally doing the fact inquiry necessary to make the findings that would support a finding of contempt under the law

Her Honor has now entered a formal court order, made it extremely clear what conduct it covers, and grilled the government attorneys on what their understanding of that order is, on the record.

110

Are you really criticizing the judge for not finding contempt during the hearing in which she was doing the inquiry necessary to make a finding of contempt?

000

If she can make the finding that someone knowingly and unambiguously lied before her, very likely.

170

She's also furious because, based on the testimony of the witnesses today, it's becoming increasingly apparent that someone is lying to someone. Either NPS is lying to DOJ, DOJ is lying to NPS, or NPS and DOJ both are lying to her Honor.

1185

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 2h

She's furious because she made her expectations clear and counsel promised to make sure they were met, and then very much did not.

2202

She hadn't previously entered a formal court order. Now she has. She also brought in two witnesses today with no warning to grill them on how the decision is made, and intends to do more so tomorrow to determine if she was lied to in open court.

3223

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 2h

To her great regret, the Hon. Ana Reyes did not memorialize her instructions at the previous hearing in a formal order.