Lindsey Halligan, Esquire has probably gotten a lot of unfair press in the past week. On August 22, 2022, she filed a new civil lawsuit and called the complaint a motion. The case is listed by the Clerk as Trump v. United States, Case No. 22-cv-81294-AMC. (Every new civil lawsuit starts off with a complaint. There are no motions until a complaint is filed.)
The motion Ms. Halligan signed says it is "In the Matter of the Search," and it is titled Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief from the orders entered by the Magistrate Judge on the now-famous search warrant in the criminal case. That's another case entirely, of course, Southern District of Florida Criminal Case No. 22-mj-8332-BER. And it's a criminal case, not a civil case. But wait. There's a method to this seeming madness.
Reportedly Ms. Halligan has no experience in federal court, and other reports identify her as "an insurance lawyer" at the Ft. Lauderdale office of Cole Scott & Kissane. That is an insurance defense firm among many other practice areas.
She was however present when the search warrant was executed. It is now reported that the alleged owner of the search premises actually had two attorneys present at that time and she was one of them. (Ms. Halligan has apparently said so on TV.)
The electronic docket of the new lawsuit in federal court identifies Ms. Halligan's involvement in the new lawsuit as an appearance by Cole Scott & Kissane. Every civil case needs a Civil Cover Sheet, and the Civil Cover Sheet in the new civil case indeed identifies Ms. Halligan with Cole Scott & Kissane.
However, the motion she herself signed does not give her law firm address at Cole. She gives a different address in Ft. Lauderdale. She also lists only her personal EMail address at gmail, not her EMail address at the law firm.
In the meantime, there has been no contest of the search warrant in the already-pending criminal case. There have been motions and requests to unseal the search warrant, the inventory, and the affidavit, but these requests to unseal have not been filed by the alleged owner of the searched premises. The owner has not made an appearance in the criminal case, yet. No, the requests to unseal have come from newspapers and organizations who want to publish whatever documents may be unsealed.
The first request to unseal came early, on August 10, 2022. To say again, the alleged owner has never made a request to unseal.
In fact, the alleged owner has never made an appearance in the criminal case.
So why file a new lawsuit if it was not a mistake? Well, for one thing, they got a new judge. The judge assigned to the new lawsuit is the Honorable Aileen M. Cannon. She was appointed effective November 13, 2020 by the alleged owner of the searched premises.
The attorney whose signature appears on the Civil Cover Sheet filed in the new lawsuit – back to the Civil Cover Sheet, who knew? – looks to be the signature of Evan Corcoran, Esquire. Mr. Corcoran, from a large law firm with offices in Maryland and D.C., represented Mr. Steve Bannon at one of Mr. Bannon's criminal hearings not too long ago. Mr. Corcoran is listed on the motion in the civil case as one of the lawyers representing the owner of the searched premises.
So, it may be unfair to criticize Lindsey Halligan for all this. Maybe the motion was intended to be filed in the criminal case; the Certificate of Service lists electronic service on the lawyers appearing for the United States in the criminal case, after all. (It would be odd if not impossible to put a Certificate of Service on the initial complaint in a civil case in federal court, since there's no lawyer yet for the other party or parties in that case at that time.)
On the other hand, the new lawsuit may be the brain-child of someone else entirely.
And now the reasons for filing a new lawsuit may be a little more transparent.
In the meantime, the alleged owner of the search premises still has not appeared in the criminal case.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments