[marshray]

I don't see why the court couldn't 'refashion' Levison's statement ...

"[I object] to turning over the SSL keys because that would compromise all of the secure communications in and out of my network, including my own administrative traffic."

... into "anything remotely close to a statutory-text-based challenge to the district court’s fundamental authority under the Pen/Trap Statute"

As a lay person, it sounds like the court wasn't trying very hard.

[peterwoo]

It's clear to me, even as a lay person, that Levinson's statement does not refer to any statutory text. Or any legal procedure, etc. On what grounds was he objecting?

"A party does not go far enough by raising a non-specific objection or claim"

[marshray]

Obviously Levison is attempting to argue that the pen/trap statute is limited to specific information ("metatdata") and it does not allow interception of "all of the secure communications [and] administrative traffic".

That he didn't cite the chapter and verse which this contradicts seems like an situation where he needed a real defense lawyer.