Because of how quickly the temporary restraining order for the Trump administration was issued, it’s unlikely that he would have taken the situation papers seriously. The filings from the 19 suing Democrat position attorneys generals were thus massive, and Engelmayer’s attempt was entered so fast, that it could not possibly have been the solution of reasoned criminal analysis and reflection.  , The odor is so terrible, questions of probable problem must be answered.
Engelmayer is the first judge to acquiesce to a temporary restraining order ( TRO ) against the president of the United States that also forbids a cabinet secretary from obtaining his own records without allowing these parties an opportunity to respond. He did not explain why he is enabling scams and profiteer by preventing access to information that show who received government funding and what, nor how his legal authority to make for a dramatic decision, the federal law governing prohibitions and temporary restraining orders, or why he was allowing it.
Feb. 14 is the scheduled court hearing for this event. In a previous article, I wrote about some of the legal flaws that were present in the claimant says ‘ requests for a TRO and Engelmayer’s order preventing Elon Musk’s Trump’s Department of Government Performance from investigating federal payments. New data shows the position was much worse than suggested by , my earlier observation , that” Engelmayer’s Order was a pretty rushed, put-up work”.
After Engelmayer received the States ‘ Complaint and related papers on Friday evening, he wasted no time in decision on the software for a TRO, as I previously stated earlier. In a miracle of seeming super-human performance and concentration, he had apparently had reviewed and carefully analyzed the 80+ pages of the Complaint and the Memorandum of Law, thoroughly read at least some of the 100+ court opinions, articles and other sources cited by the Plaintiffs, and concentrated on it all very thoroughly before entering his unprecedented , Order , granting the request for a TRO”.
Actually, the situation is worse than that. Here’s the timeline of the court filings. Colleen Faherty, the New York Special Trial Counsel, filed all of these initial documents.
Friday, February 7
7: 32 p. m. — , Faherty sent an email to two government lawyers advising them” of the States]sic ] concerns about Defendants’ harmful conduct and the States]sic ] intent to seek immediate temporary relief”.
7: 39 p. m.  , — Seven minutes later, Faherty “filed” a 200-plus paragraph, 60-page ,” Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief“, which included an “emergency” request for a TRO. The court immediately referred to it as” Filing Error – Deficient Pleading.”
The court’s electronic filing system’s filing system erred due to this technical error. Nevertheless, the filing was defective, and Faherty was directed to re-file the complaint.
10: 09 p. m.  , — Faherty filed a” Proposed Order” for the judge to see what she wanted the TRO to say.
10: 13 p. m. — , The coalition of Democrat attorneys general filed a 40-page legal , memorandum , in support of the requested TRO. More than 27 pages of discussion and references to 54 court opinions were included.
10: 15 p. m.  , — The court received an “affirmation of Colleen K. Faherty” that affirmed she had sent the 7: 32 p. m. e-mail to the government lawyers.
Saturday, February 8
12: 39 a. m.  , — Judge Engelmayer entered his order granting the TRO.
1: 04 a. m. — , Faherty e-mailed four items — the complaint, the legal memorandum, her prior affirmation, and the order granting the TRO — to two government lawyers, only one of whom had been a recipient of her 7: 32 p. m. email.
1: 14 a. m. — , The complaint was refiled with the deficiency corrected. Note that a complaint that was properly filed wasn’t filed until more than a half-hour after Judge Engelmayer had already issued his ruling.
5: 48 p. m.  , — , This is when Faherty’s certification , arrived that, at 1: 04 a. m., she had emailed the above documents to the government lawyers.
Anyone attempting to read the suit and the materials submitted with it would be faced with a monumental task, even if they had assistance, as I had already stated in my first article. The , Complaint , runs to 200-plus paragraphs in almost 60 pages. The plaintiffs cited more than 50 articles and other sources in the complaint alone that they believed were of sufficient importance to include in it. It was accompanied by a 40-page legal , Memorandum , that includes more than 27 pages of discussion, and citations to 54 court opinions”.
The accelerated timeline is incredible, especially given the extensive evidence that a diligent judge would examine in order to make an informed decision. And I mean “incredible” in its literal sense of” not to be believed”.
At 10: 13 and 10: 15 p.m., the legal memorandum and its citation to 54 court opinions were the final documents submitted in support of the request for a TRO. Did Engelmayer read these? Not a chance. Did he read any of them? You can’t tell from his order if he did, aside from one citation from him to a single case that lacked any resemblance to the one before him.
Even if Engelmayer had received and began to study these , materials , immediately after he had them all, he spent less than two-and-one-half hours reviewing and analyzing the materials presented to him before entering his order at 12: 39 a. m.
Not even considering the amount of time Engelmeyer would have needed to write his order. He spent less than two hours perusing the lengthy record before beginning to write his order if it took him just a half-hour to complete that. He was unable to take into account more than a small portion of the cases cited and other authorities at the time. How much of this order was generated by AI, as it is raised.
Aside from these other filings, Engelmayer only had the complaint for five hours, even assuming that he got it promptly when it was first ( improperly ) filed. He had already entered his order, so the complaint wasn’t properly filed until afterward.
Five hours was not even enough time to thoroughly examine and evaluate the 60-page complaint, not to mention the authorities and sources it cites. There was not enough time, that is, for an honest judge to try to fulfill his duty to provide a justified and impartial opinion.
Any judge I knew would have spent a lot of time and effort trying to thwart the president of the United States ‘ efforts to halt the spending that is putting the country on the verge of a fiscal cliff. With these charlatans, however, that is too much to hope for.
It is simply unbelievable that Engelmayer’s order was a trustworthy piece of work. The timeline leads us to the conclusion that the fix was in place and that a decision was made.
I will never once again be offended by anything these people do. All rules, all the so-called guiderails, are gone. Democrats are determined to overthrow Trump and his presidency, regardless of how much the country will be benefited. Congress must investigate this travesty to determine if Engelmayer’s impeachment is warranted.
A version of this article , was originally published on the author’s Substack,” Bravo Blue”.
Former federal court judge John A. Lucas has tried and argued a number of cases, including those before the US Supreme Court. He served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted man before going on to law school at the University of Texas. He later received his degree from West Point in 1969. He served as the leader of the infantry platoon in Vietnam and is an Army Ranger. He is married with five children. He and his wife now live in Virginia. John also is published at johnalucas6. substack .com.
