Interlocutory Appeal:

An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.

The keyword in the above is “specific circumstances” and, though we cannot be sure as to what “specific circumstances that Lindell’s team is relying upon in their attempt to appeal before they’ve even gone to trial against Dominion, we do know they are attempting to make an argument that Dominion is somehow akin to the government (thereby seeking some sort of immunity in First Amendment something something…)

“My Pillow attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz and Supreme Court veteran Nathan Lewin, argue they believe the appeals court will rule in their favor and find ‘Dominion’s complaint did not satisfy the most stringent actual malice requirement under New York Times v. Sullivan, which applies to a government actor operating in the context of a large public debate.”

Right, except there was no debate absent the defamation and with respect to “actual malice,” well – one need only look at some of the things said about the company by these very defendants, and “actual malice” seems almost self-proving. They tried to pin an entire presidential loss on the company with no proof whatsoever, nothing but rumor after rumor, no good-faith research. This would seem to fit every reasonable definition of “malice” that we’ve ever contemplated.

In reality, they’re looking for anything that will delay, delay, delay, and hope that they can get Dominion to settle for a lesser figure by continuing to delay, delay. And the courts are super good at picking these things up. We give them about as much chance as they have in reinstatement by January 1st. (Lindell’s newest date).

Good luck, Mike and Allen!

****
[email protected] and on Twitter @JasonMiciak