AMC: Motion to Compel Me to Stop Writing

Wherein I Cannot Stop Analyzing This Brief And Its Citations Until I'm Done

Y’all.

We’re going on a deep dive on this AMC brief. We are going to dissect it down to the cited case law because it is a juicy thing with morsels galore. It gives us hints about the parties’ theory of the case, it gives us intimations about what might be at issue at the PI hearing. It is a cup full of tea leaves, and you know what I love readin’.

We are going to savor it all, every last soupçon.

But first, a diversion and a change of metaphor, because this is going to be a long journey, and we need to debrief before we go on this trek together.

I have recently read so many brilliant Substack tutorials from highly successful authors — who are so wise — and yet in this single post, I am going to willfully and knowingly violate multiple “canonical” rules in one fell swoop.

This post is going to be long.

It’s going to be detailed and nuanced.

It’s going to have rabbit holes in its rabbit holes.

It’s the second post in a two days on the same topic.

It’s the seventh post I’ve made in ten days on the account.

This introduction hasn’t even gotten to the substantive point yet!

And the ones of you who love it are going to love it. The rest of you? If worst comes to worst, I will find solace in this brilliant piece by Cory Doctorow. Or maybe you will find a solution therein.

Let me summarize the part that you might need to hear:

“[H]onestly, if you don’t want to read (some of) what I want to write, and you’ve chosen to follow me on a platform that doesn’t let you pick out the stuff you want and hide the stuff you don’t, that’s your problem, not mine.

[here he proceeds to give a million specific solutions for how to get the content you want from him in complicated schemes the likes of which I have not quite devised yet — I’m working on it]

Or you can read someone else. No hard feelings, honestly! I relish the freedom of writing exactly what I want to write, and the freedom to read exactly what I want to read. If it’s too much work for you to pick out the stuff of mine that appeals to you, that is one hundred percent fine. I am not required reading. No one is.

So true. And at the same time, as he reiterates in the rest of the piece, there is nothing like finding the reader who wants to read what you want to write. It’s been the pleasure of my life to — as Doctorow puts it — find “the weirdos who like[] the same stuff as [me].”

And just yesterday, I received a response to one of my Substack posts that said only:

Chance,

Your emails bring joy.

And messages like that bring me a lot of joy.

Because here’s the reality: you-all could — hypothetically — read a bunch of dusty case law on corporate governance all day long.

But you know what? Ya won’t.

Look, it’s nine o’clock on a [Frid]urday. (Ok, now it’s actually Saturday because this has taken me so long to write, so I’m torn as to whether to edit the oddity out. Nope. It’s staying in.) I’m Billy Joel playing Piano Man, doing what I am called to do. You don’t have to stay and listen, but if you do, maybe we can see what we see and forget about life for a while.

Love me or leave me, no one is required reading. But this AMC brief might just be.

So, now, for reals, let’s dive in.