Boston College has filed a docketing statement -- two days after the court's deadline, 'cause they're right on top of this one -- in its Belfast Project appeal (see below, if you have lots of time on your hands). The sad thing here is that the First Circuit's docketing statement form is a total snooze -- compare it to the form from the Ninth Circuit, which requires a brief description of the "Principal Issues to be Raised on Appeal." Clearly, the First Circuit is not thinking about my needs.
But there's one very mildly interesting addition, a "supplemental" declaration typed on a separate page and stuck into the middle of the court's form: "Appeals from the denial of a motion to intervene in this action, and from a separate action relating to the same subject matter that was dismissed, are pending in this Court in Nos. 11-2511 and 12-1159 (consolidated as No. 11-2511). No abeyance of any of the appeals or consolidation is warranted."
Translation: Don't lump us in with those fuckers, 'cause we wanna go this one alone.
Those other two appeals, 11-2511 and 12-1159, were filed by BC's Belfast Project researchers. The trial court denied their request to intervene in the case between BC and the government, and did so on the premise that BC adequately represents the interests of its own researchers -- precisely the people BC wants to keep at arm's length. We represent your interests, and we're on your side, and we don't want to be in court with you, and we don't want anything to do with your appeals.
No contradictions or tensions in there at all.
Bc Docketing Statement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chris,
ReplyDeletewhich sort of proves the point we have been making about them not representing our interests all along.
Very much so. It'll be fascinating to watch the legal system pretend to believe this fiction while BC does everything it can to signal its contempt for your interests. This is why a lawyerly understanding of the case is necessarily false at its heart. The legal fictions don't match the earthly reality.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime it is nice to be icky!
ReplyDeleteChris, this is an interesting post. One point, which I think is probably consistent with your post, is that as far as I know BC has never taken the position that it adequately represents Moloney & McIntyre's position. That was the government's argument in opposition to M&M's motion for leave to intervene. So I think it's necessary to read the last two sentences of your post with that in mind.
ReplyDelete