(1) If @RekietaMedia actually said that the appellees& #39; 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& #39;ll doubt that he said it. https://twitter.com/sjw_cat/status/1246519559928139776">https://twitter.com/sjw_cat/s...

(2) WFT is the thing about "standing to appeal to the TXSC"? If Vic loses, Vic can appeal the substantive loss anyway. There& #39;s no need for anything else.

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

I& #39;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">https://twitter.com/greg_douc...

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">https://twitter.com/karhifer/...

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& #39;s only so much I can take.)