🤡🤡🤡 [Lindell] 🃏🃏🃏

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell begs FBI to give back cell: 'My hearing aids are tied to this phone' https://t.co/ssw4tS2IXu

— Raw Story (@RawStory) September 22, 2022

So you've got all this money to throw around foolishly, but you don't have your phone backed up somewhere? My phone is backed up six ways from Sunday, and everything on it (except apps) is shared on my computer, too. And yes, I'm including text messages. Lindell is rich enough to just buy another phone immediately and download the app for his hearing aids, if that's a real problem (who knows? Maybe it is.). That he has lost access to all that information is his own lookout. But look! It gets worse!

TRUMP RULING BOOMERANGS ON MYPILLOW BOSS: A Trump-appointed federal judge just denied a TRO for Mike Lindell to get his phone back after it was seized by FBI at Hardee's. Judge cites....wait for it.....Trump docs ruling from 11th Circuit last night. Doc: https://t.co/zw4CyplxfP

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) September 22, 2022

Remember what I said about "Give me the rules and I'll give you the law, and you'll lose everytime?" Lindell's lawyers had neither the rules nor the law on their side, but they never get past being beat up with the rules. They asked for a TRO. There are rules for a TRO; local federal rules, in this case (there are others, but these count, too):

(1) The request does not comply with Rule 65(b). 

Relevant here, Rule 65(b) provides: 

(b) Temporary Restraining Order.

(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and 

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. With respect to the requirements in subparagraph (b)(1)(A), 

Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint that includes allegations of irreparable injuries. With respect to subparagraph (b)(1)(B), however, Plaintiffs’ attorney filed no certification. 

I'm guessing the lawyers were aware of Trump's lawyer signing a confirmation he'd turned over all the papers covered by the subpoena at MAL.  Not an excuse here.  

Wait; it gets worse:

(2) Though Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) as the basis for their motion, Plaintiffs do not discuss the Rule or cite any authority that might explain why the cellphone’s return is appropriate under the Rule. To be clear, Plaintiffs cite Rule 41(g) in their Motion and in the caption and introductory paragraph of their Memorandum. But that’s it. Rule 41(g) goes unmentioned in the remainder of Plaintiffs’ 18-page memorandum.

This is clownshow stuff.  This is "Call your malpractice carrier before he sets your policy on fire" stuff.

Oh, you want the citation to Trump's case?  It's not as exciting as it sounds.  The court goes on to dismiss the TRO application because....well, let the court tell it:

(3) Whether Rule 41(g) requires the cellphone’s return is not obvious, and that’s understating things. Rule 41(g) allows a person whose property has been seized by the Government to petition the district court for its return. Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2008). A pre-indictment motion seeking the return of seized property, which the Eighth Circuit has said “is more properly considered a suit in equity rather than one under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,” turns on consideration of several factors. Black Hills Inst. of Geological Research v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 967 F.2d 1237, 1239 (8th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). These include: “whether the action involved a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” “whether the party seeking return has an individual interest in and need for the property, whether the party has an adequate remedy at law, and whether the property would be irreparably damaged by a failure to return.” Id. at 1239, 1240 (citations omitted). “[W]hen the owner of seized property seeks injunctive relief for the return of property while the case remains in the investigative stage (i.e. before criminal charges are brought), the district court must also balance the government’s interest in retaining the property against the owner’s right to get it back.” Id. at 1240; see also Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005, 2022 WL 4366684, at **7–9 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022) (applying like factors in adjudicating motion for partial stay of district court order). 

I highlighted the best parts: the opening sentence, and then the sentence with the citation to Trump v. U.S.

As I said: clownshow stuff.  With lawyers like this Lindell would be better off acting pro se.  The court would be a bit more lenient, and he'd save a lot of money.  He'd still lose, but he wouldn't waste money on these clowns.