Appellant answers the amicus in one page: the draft is at 10 p.m., "on that point, the parties finally agree"

Marc Goldich filed his response to the Patel amicus brief late Wednesday. It is one page. He wants the Court to know that the brief it answers was seven.

“Appellant thanks Amicus for his thoughtful, meticulously researched, seven-page defense of a dispute that had already been resolved by the time his brief was filed,” the response begins. The admin keys, oracle outputs, hard forks, canonical chains, Rule 23, and the question “whether two people constitute a class or merely a group chat” are, Goldich allows, “important questions. They are also questions this Court need not reach.”

The reasoning is procedural. Goldich asked for 10:00 p.m. The Commissioner opposed it. The Commissioner then moved the draft to 10:00 p.m. “Appellant thus obtained the complete relief he sought and voluntarily dismissed his remaining claims.” Amicus asked the Court to let the draft “proceed as scheduled.” The draft is scheduled for 10:00 p.m. “On that point, the parties finally agree.”

The Court is “respectfully invited to treat the remaining discussion as an unusually sophisticated law review article concerning a fantasy football dispute whose requested relief has already been granted.” The response cites Goldich v. Dylus, 2 F.F. 10 (2026) (“Come on, man.”), and closes with an acknowledgment: “Appellant does, however, appreciate Amicus’s concession that Appellant’s brief is ‘very good.’”

The signature block has grown. Goldich now signs as “Appellant, Pro Se, Recipient of Complete Relief, Still Undefeated in Motions Practice.”

The Court’s note

The response is, in substance, a suggestion of mootness, and the Court has already declined one. The appellant says he obtained “complete relief.” The Commissioner says he granted none. Both cannot be right, and the Court’s order of Wednesday evening explains why it has sided, for now, with the Commissioner’s description of his own conduct: a decree that grants nothing can be withdrawn by the same means, and until the draft actually begins at 10:00 p.m., the appellant’s relief is a mood.

The Court also notes that the appellant’s claim to be “undefeated in motions practice” rests on a record consisting of one motion denied, one appeal referred to a trash bin, and one motion to compel that was never ruled on. The Court expresses no view on the definition of “undefeated.” The opinion issues Monday.