Reading the judge's order above: The appeals court stayed Judge Folsom’s order, the order that according to the appeals court “(1) holding EchoStar in contempt of its previous injunction, (2) enjoining EchoStar, and (3) requiring that EchoStar take certain steps in light of its contempt holdings.” (Quoted from the appeals court stay order) Compare what the appeals court said to what Judge Folsom said below with differences noted: “Having considered the Circuit’s stay order, the Court finds that the order does not preclude this Court from resolving the sanctions issue at this time. Instead, the Circuit merely [(1) which was omitted by Judge Folsom,] [(2)] stayed the injunction in this case and [(3)] stayed this Court’s order that EchoStar take certain steps (i.e. disable DVR functionality) in light of the injunction [rather “in light of its contempt holdings”].” The steps related to the additional sanctions are not “in light of the injunction” rather “in light of the contempt holdings.” By playing word game, the judge tried to justify his sanction proceedings. Had he stuck to the appeals court “in light of the contempt holdings” he could not have justified the sanction proceedings, because the contempt holdings (item (1)) were stayed by the appeals court. So he changed it to “in light of the injunction.” Just like how Judge Folsom freely interpreted his own injunction and the appeals court KSM case law, he is now freely interpreting the appeals court’s stay order again. Or put it differently, the order which was stayed by the appeals court also said: Judge Folsom even quoted his own provisions in this order, but failed to recognize that his such order was stayed, meaning his above claimed jurisdictions are also stayed because they are a part of the order that was stayed.