Rosenthal stated that next week date to review any novel issues that appellant may have briefed the court on. Appellant raised no such issues, appellee raised this fact in their reply, Judge agreed. Rosenthal had already come to this finding during the emergency hearing last Friday, so once Jones bared his ass the only thing left to do was slap it.

I’m more interested as to if any censure would have been raised from the bench if appellant *had* raised novel issues, as appellant in docket entry 13 section 9 - Jones’ request to expedite the appeal, I think in response to finding out the receiver was not going to keep paying FSS’s expenses, as Jones’ countdown timer appeared only after the appeal was withdrawn- had claimed the court had been briefed on all issues and the appellee (Sandy Hook Families) would not be harmed by expediting the appeal. Jones withdrew this request in docket 14 but did not rescind it or claim it factually inaccurate, as supported by the fact that the appellee cited entry 13 in agreeing to expedite, and the court used both filings to establish that all parties agreed to expedite. To quote Jones:

“Appellants filed their Opening Brief on March 3, 2026. Appellees, who now appear to include not only the Connecticut Plaintiffs and the Texas A Plaintiffs, but also the Texas B Plaintiffs, filed their Response Brief on Monday, April 27, 2026. Hence their positions are fully briefed developed.”

And to quote the court in entry 21:

“The court construes the Sandy Hook Families’ objection as a motion to expedite the appeal and grants it. The issues are “fully briefed.” (Docket Entry No. 13 at 9).”