(1) If @RekietaMedia actually said that the appellees' briefs, which include certificates of compliance, were over-length, it would prove conclusively that Nick is functionally illiterate when it comes to reading procedural rules. So, at least for now, I'll doubt that he said it. https://twitter.com/sjw_cat/status/1246519559928139776

(2) WFT is the thing about "standing to appeal to the TXSC"? If Vic loses, Vic can appeal the substantive loss anyway. There's no need for anything else.

(3) If Vic does petition for SCOTX review, something money something bowl, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm going to differ with Greg on this one. With competent appellate briefing, might have happened. But the flaming morass that Ty submitted makes it much less likely (IMO) that a cert court would use this case as a vehicle to review those areas. https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1246528762063335427?s=20

This is my theory, too. And also why I used the phrase "functionally illiterate" to describe the level of misreading required to make that mistake. https://twitter.com/karhifer/status/1246538248584867841?s=20

And, seriously, KiwiFarms can always, always, always be counted on to make the most fundamental possible mistakes. But damn, this one is almost fractally wrong. (I stopped reading there - there's only so much I can take.)