These documents have w-a-y too much case law for the author of the ACR Blog. We'll leave the discussion of the merits of these filings to others.
The only point we'd like to make is that it doesn't appear that the defense means for U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle to be the intended audience for the Motion to Acquit. The ACR Blog thinks that the entire motion is simply intended to lay the groundwork for an appeal.
Here's what we mean. On page 19 of the Motion to Acquit, the defense writes:
The evidence presented at trial is insufficient to establish any sort of [conspiracy] agreement, much less that Mr. Ring knowingly and intentionally joined it. Mr. Volz did not describe any sort of agreement to act unlawfully between Mr. Ring and anyone -- not even on that involved implicit winks and nods. For his part, Mr. Boulanger described any agreement to “win at all costs” and his own beliefs that the rules did not matter in such an environment. But other than this evidence, there simply was no evidence that lobbyists at Greenberg Traurig, including Mr. Ring, joined any conspiracy of the type described by the government.
Does the defense really think Judge Huvelle will find that there is no conspiracy? Less than a week ago, Judge Huvelle identified 12 people as conspirators. We rather doubt that Judge Huvelle can see that many conspirators but no conspiracy.