Summiting, Part III.
At oral argument, my certified-appellate-specialist counterpart responded to a justice's question by evidently abandoning his first of two primary arguments.
Seizing on this curious concession, I pinned him on this point and then advanced to his second contention.
The next day, I received a copy of a letter he sent to the justices. In the missive, he attempted to retract his concession imploring the court to consider his first claimed error. To gain the court's benevolence, he asserted that he wasn't prepared for the question and his remark was ill-considered and hasty.
Incredibly, about 14 days later, I received a second letter he later sent to the justices. In the second correspondence, he attempted to “clarify” his first letter, again saying that he wanted the court to rule in his client's favor on his first argument.
Three bites at the proverbial apple. That was a first.