Law school: What a denial of a stay looks like

In the last several weeks, a slew of intermediate court decisions have mostly or all come out against Trump or the indicted goons who helped him try to succeed in his 1/6 coup attempt. For example, yesterday a federal judge rejected Trump's attempt to move a 14th Amendment lawsuit is a Colorado state court to the federal court in Colorado. Things are not going well for the extremely bad guys at the moment, but it is still early days. Their fortunes could still turn around.

In his criminal lawsuit in Georgia, Mark Meadows, like all the other traitors, has been trying to delay and wriggle out of legal jeopardy as best he can. Yesterday a federal judge rejected Meadow's attempt to stop the Georgia state court case while his appeal to a federal court is being heard. What Meadows is trying to do is get his case moved from a Georgia state court to a federal court. Meadows believes that his chances of getting off are better in a Federal court than a state court.

The federal trial court judge, Steve Jones, rejected Meadows' request for a stay or delay in the state court while the federal appeals court ponders the Meadows request to be tried in federal court. 

Page 1 of the decision 

A couple of snippets from the denial of an Emergency Stay are interesting. Jones writes in his 10 page decision:

Meadows seeks a stay of the order remanding—or more specifically, declining to exercise jurisdiction over—his criminal prosecution initiated in Fulton County Superior Court.

An emergency stay may be granted if the movant shows (1) he is “likely to prevail on the merits on appeal,” (2) “absent a stay [he] will suffer irreparable damage,” (3) the State would not suffer “substantial harm from the issuance of the stay,” and (4) “that the public interest will be served by issuing the stay.” .... “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” [in other words, Meadows has to demonstrate those four factors are present]

Factor 1: “Ordinarily the first factor, the likelihood of prevailing on the merits, is the most important.” He first points to the Court’s recognition that the issues presented in his removal action were novel and then asserts three specific contentions of error. These arguments simply preview the issues Meadows is raising on appeal. There is nothing in the summary of arguments he plans to raise in his challenge to the denial of removal to convince this Court that its decision was incorrect. Thus, Meadows has shown no likelihood or prevailing on the merits of his appeal.

Factor 2: Meadows fails to show that anything more than a possibility of irreparable harm in absence of a stay. Some “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient, and more than “mere possibility” is required.

Section 1455(b)(3) provides that “[t]he filing of a notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which such prosecution is pending from proceeding further.” .... Meadows’s alleged previous harm is not a basis for finding irreparable harm to grant his Emergency Motion.

Judge Jones similarly rejected Meadows arguments for factors 3 and 4. He lost on all four arguments. That does not mean that he will lose his plea to get his case transferred to federal courts. It just means that the Georgia state court can continue its prosecution until the federal court decides whether Meadows should be tried in federal or state court. But even if Meadows succeeds to get his case transferred to federal court, he will still be tried under Georgia state laws, not federal law. 

According to one source, Meadows apparently is trying to get a friendlier federal jury pool in a federal court instead of the juror pool in Fulton County state court in Atlanta: 

If a trial went forward in federal court, the jury pool would likely have been broader and slightly friendlier to Trump and his allies than one drawn only from Fulton County. A federal court trial also would be unlikely to be televised, whereas the state court judge has already vowed to livestream all the proceedings.

And the legal battles continue . . . . .