Claims And Issues

AN OPEN LETTER TO LAWYERS AND THEIR BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

Re:  In Defense of the Rule of Law and the Independence of the Legal Profession.

As a lawyer, I am keenly interested in the Defense of the Rule of Law and the Independence of the Legal Profession.  I am sure that you are interested in these principles as well.

     The New York City Bar circulated a Joint Statement of Bar Associations subscribing to these principles on March 24, 2025: Download NYC BAR L 032425 .

      I did not find the names of my Bar Associations on it as a signatory.   The Joint Statement concludes with the information necessary to subscribe to it:

 Bar Associations interested in signing this statement should email efriedman[at]nycbar.org

      If like me, you find that your Bar Association did not become a Signatory to this Joint Statement in defense of our profession and its independence, forward them the Joint Statement or share this link with them, as you or they may prefer:  https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/in-defense-of-the-rule-of-law-and-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession.

      For my part, I sent a letter to my Bar Associations today.  I asked them if they had signed the Joint Statement, copy enclosed/link embedded.  If they have not signed it, I asked them why they haven't.

      You do the same, my friend and colleague, for your sake and my sake, for the sake of the legal profession, and for the sake of our country.

Thank you.

 

Justice will not come from our natural disposition to avoid conflict. Not now. Not with these people.

(U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Magistrate Judge Program)

"Settle With The B*st*rds!"  It just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Justice does not come easily.  Dr. King famously said that the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.  He never said it would be easy.

Some things must already be in place before justice can come.  Things like commitment to a set of moral values even as others do their best to lower those values, even destroy them.  And things like the courage it will take to stand against the forces that will deny justice to you and to anyone else for as long as it may be worth their while.

During my experience practicing law, "sue the b*st*rds" was a catch phrase.  For better or for worse, I never hear it said now.

News that the Paul Weiss law firm settled with the regime rather than contest one of the latest so-called executive orders has prompted me to write about this.  They could have "sued the b*st*rds" but they didn't.  This is a subject that has been on my mind.

The contrast with the Coie Perkins law firm is too great to hold my tongue any longer.   Coie Perkins actually did "sue the b*st*rds."

Paul Weiss has all the lawyers in the world.  I guess they decided in their wisdom, which is closer to their situation than mine, that money was too important to them to spend it to fight being made targets.

Coie Perkins has the second most lawyers in the world.  Paul Weiss has chosen to settle.  Coie Perkins has chosen to sue.

That spurred me to share my thoughts.  My thoughts on the subject may be incomplete as a result of these sudden developments, but they are certain.

Lawsuits are a poor way of advancing public policy.  That is mostly because, in my eyes, litigation exists to serve the litigants in our legal system.  Parties can settle whenever they want, for whatever they want.  Settlements benefit the parties, not the public, at least in the vast majority of civil cases.

It is only when lawsuits are taken to conclusion that they affect public policy, and even then public policy will depend on the conclusion that was reached in a given case.

All that is true in my experience.  To say again, lawsuits are a poor way of making policy.

But settlements are even worse.  Settlements hardly ever make policy.  For one thing, most settlements are kept secret.  Take a look at the reporting over the Paul Weiss settlement, for example.  The details so far have come out of the regime, not from Paul Weiss.

No settlement of this kind ever made things better for the American public.

No settlement like this ever vindicated a Constitutional principle.

And no settlement under circumstances like this, in which one party backed off their exercise of domination only because another party capitulated, ever was good for anyone except perhaps the one who dominated after all.

Never.

Ever.

So regardless of what else you may hear from other people, these are my thoughts.  Even if a lawsuit fails to accomplish anything, at least the parties and their lawyers tried.  Sometimes, though, they improve public policy including when a good defense is put up in the case.

Settlements, on the other hand, always fail to benefit the public in cases like this.  Sometimes they benefit one of the parties to the settlement.   Rarely they benefit all of the parties to the settlement.  But always these settlements fail to benefit the public.

Two final thoughts.  I am familiar with the choice between sue or settle.  The choice in a civil suit is different from what seems to be the current choice everywhere in addition to the choices in courts:  Withstand or submit.  Not for a long time have most people been forced to choose between such extremes, I think.

I think that most people alive today have not been forced to choose between such extremes, to withstand or to submit.  I am pretty confident, though, that our public choices have not been informed by money anywhere near as much as they are now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

An Open Letter to Judge Dale E. Ho and his Law Clerks.

This isue is so urgent and so important that I am publishing this article on all my platforms, on Substack and on my blogs, in an effort to reach the attention of Judge Ho and his Law Clerks.

 

An Open Letter to Judge Dale E. Ho and his Law Clerks

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

 

Re:  United States v. Eric Adams, Case No. 1:24-cr-0556-DEH, Southern District of New York.

The Court has for consideration the Nolle Prosequi, or "motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."  U.S. v. Adams, Nolle Prosequi [hereinafter "the Motion"], Doc. No. 122, filed Feb. 14, 2025 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)) (emphasis added).

The Motion is based on assertions and not on facts.  For that reason alone, the Motion does not comply with the rule it invokes, Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 48(a).  See United States v. Jovanovic, Cr. Action No. 25-15 (BAH), 2025 WL 266551, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025) (Howell, J.).

Here, the Motion before the Court is bereft of facts.  On its face, it is expressly based not on the perceived observations and knowledge of any lawyer who signed the Motion, but it is expressly based instead on something that "[t]he Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined," or has "concluded," or has "reached that conclusion," or has "also concluded."

Since there are no facts presented to guide this Court in its decision whether to grant leave as this unsworn Motion requests, and since the Defendant's attorneys (understandably) agree with the Motion, this Court and its Law Clerks responsible for considering the proper disposition of this Motion may benefit from this Open Letter, which this Court and all of its Law Clerks are of course free to consult or reject.

As noted, there are no facts provided to this Court by or with this Motion.  PACER does not reveal that any Declarations, Affidavits, or documentary evidence was filed along with this Motion.

And for good reason it seems.  It is public knowledge that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York raised the issue, based on her own personal knowledge as she expressed in her letter,  that this Motion is based on a rejection of ample evidence to support the grand jury's indictment in the first place.  For your ease of reference, I am able to make Ms. Sassoon's February 12 letter available here:    Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag 

U.S. Attorney Sassoon's letter also raised the issue that the principal if not only motivation behind the filing of the Motion is, quoting the separate resignation letter of Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, "to induce an elected official to support [the current Government's] policy objectives."   Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited.  See United States v. Ammidown, 497 F. 2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (suggesting that a prosecutor's decision to request dismissal of a criminal prosecution under Criminal Rule 48(a) might require a statement of governmental reasons and "underlying factual basis" supporting the government's decision).

It has been held, rather, that the District Court's role in the face of a Criminal Rule 48(a) Motion is to examine the record to insure that the efforts to end the criminal prosecution in the case before the Court, are not "'tainted with impropriety.'"  United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020), quoting and applying Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977).

In Flynn, District Judge Sullivan collected cases decided under Criminal Rule 48(a), concluding with a look at the reason why the Rule was enacted in the first place:

In addition, as indicated by the history of Rule 48(a), the corrupt dismissal of politically well-connected individuals would also constitute an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 130-31.

Case law under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) does not seem to support an unsupported dismissal of criminal charges in this case without an examination of a full record on this issue.  However, the published cases decided under Rule 48(a) do seem to support the development of a full record on this issue.  A full record on this issue would include, for example, the production to the Court (for in camera inspection if necessary) of all correspondence and other communications passing between any official of the current federal government, on the one hand, and Mr. Adams and his counsel on the other hand, concerning the issues set out in the pending Motion, in the February 12, 2025 letter of U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon, and in the February 14, 2025 EMail letter of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten.

Please consider or reject this Open Letter in your consideration of the pending materials.  It is appropriate to raise one additional matter here, which it might not have been quite as appropriate if I were making an appearance in this case in your Court.  Please also consider the effect on the Nation of your decision.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

 

Re:  United States v. Eric Adams, Case No. 1:24-cr-0556-DEH, Southern District of New York.

The Court has for consideration the Nolle Prosequi, or "motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."  U.S. v. Adams, Nolle Prosequi [hereinafter "the Motion"], Doc. No. 122, filed Feb. 14, 2025 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)) (emphasis added).

The Motion is based on assertions and not on facts.  For that reason alone, the Motion does not comply with the rule it invokes, Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 48(a).  See United States v. Jovanovic, Cr. Action No. 25-15 (BAH), 2025 WL 266551, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025) (Howell, J.).

Here, the Motion before the Court is bereft of facts.  On its face, it is expressly based not on the perceived observations and knowledge of any lawyer who signed the Motion, but it is expressly based instead on something that "[t]he Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined," or has "concluded," or has "reached that conclusion," or has "also concluded."

Since there are no facts presented to guide this Court in its decision whether to grant leave as this unsworn Motion requests, and since the Defendant's attorneys (understandably) agree with the Motion, this Court and its Law Clerks responsible for considering the proper disposition of this Motion may benefit from this Open Letter, which this Court and all of its Law Clerks are of course free to consult or reject.

As noted, there are no facts provided to this Court by or with this Motion.  PACER does not reveal that any Declarations, Affidavits, or documentary evidence was filed along with this Motion.

And for good reason it seems.  It is public knowledge that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York raised the issue, based on her own personal knowledge as she expressed in her letter,  that this Motion is based on a rejection of ample evidence to support the grand jury's indictment in the first place.  For your ease of reference, I am able to make Ms. Sassoon's February 12 letter available here:    Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag 

U.S. Attorney Sassoon's letter also raised the issue that the principal if not only motivation behind the filing of the Motion is, quoting the separate resignation letter of Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, "to induce an elected official to support [the current Government's] policy objectives."   Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited.  See United States v. Ammidown, 497 F. 2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (suggesting that a prosecutor's decision to request dismissal of a criminal prosecution under Criminal Rule 48(a) might require a statement of governmental reasons and "underlying factual basis" supporting the government's decision).

It has been held, rather, that the District Court's role in the face of a Criminal Rule 48(a) Motion is to examine the record to insure that the efforts to end the criminal prosecution in the case before the Court, are not "'tainted with impropriety.'"  United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020), quoting and applying Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977).

In Flynn, District Judge Sullivan collected cases decided under Criminal Rule 48(a), concluding with a look at the reason why the Rule was enacted in the first place:

In addition, as indicated by the history of Rule 48(a), the corrupt dismissal of politically well-connected individuals would also constitute an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 130-31.

Case law under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) does not seem to support an unsupported dismissal of criminal charges in this case without an examination of a full record on this issue.  However, the published cases decided under Rule 48(a) do seem to support the development of a full record on this issue.  A full record on this issue would include, for example, the production to the Court (for in camera inspection if necessary) of all correspondence and other communications passing between any official of the current federal government, on the one hand, and Mr. Adams and his counsel on the other hand, concerning the issues set out in the pending Motion, in the February 12, 2025 letter of U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon, and in the February 14, 2025 EMail letter of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten.

Please consider or reject this Open Letter in your consideration of the pending materials.  It is appropriate to raise one additional matter here, which it might not have been quite as appropriate if I were making an appearance in this case in your Court.  Please also consider the effect on the Nation of your decision.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Yesterday was the 25th Day of This. Today we begin the 26th. What comes next is up to us.

I published this article previously on Substack where it has gotten a lot of attention.  I would like to publish it here for you as well.  Together we can get through all of this.  Together may the coming weeks be better for all of us because, in the end, no-one else came to save us but we came to save ourselves.

Constitution Backdrop published by the U.S. Government in 1935.

We have come to the end of a week of looking at the actions that current federal agencies have taken in the last 25 days. Now I wish to focus on the judges, their decisions, and the people in the current federal government. Some have asked the question of what will happen if the current federal government ignores any one or all of these decisions.

One of the earliest roles in my own practice of law was as a defense attorney. I did that for many years. As a defense lawyer, I early on developed the habit of preparing to defend all likely eventualities including the worst possible case. I will not claim that I was perfect at predicting the possibilities, but I learned always to prepare for them.

So for me, the question is not whether these people will refuse to obey Court Orders, the question is what to do when they disobey a Court Order.

It hasn't happened, so far as I know as of this writing. But it may be about to happen. Frankly, it is unclear what response might be made in actual cases, although there are many possibilities. What responses might actually be made is left, as it must be, to the judges and the lawyers who are handling those claims and cases. What follows is my best attempt to highlight at least some of the possibilities before any of them become reality.

It may be a problem for a federal judge in Rhode Island, say, to enforce his Orders against agency officials who are located in Washington, D.C.

One possible response might be to direct the judicial response to officials of the offending federal agency who are located in the District in which the federal judge sits, and so are subject to the given judge's jurisdiction and, frankly, the judge's ability to call upon the U.S. Marshals to bring the official to the judge's Court. That is one possibility.

Another possible remedy might include the lawyers who stand in the judge's courtroom arguing for actions that are unconstitutional, against the law, or ignore the law. In the situation we are imagining, those lawyers have lost the argument. Their client has disobeyed Court Orders. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to be zealous in their advocacy, but it is unethical for lawyers to counsel their clients to refuse to comply with clearly established law. Noncompliance with clearly established law seems to be the case in most if not all of these situations in the past 25 days. You might even say that it seems to be a feature of those cases, not a bug.

It would also seem, then, to be well-taken for those lawyers to have to explain their conduct. After all, they are the ones who presented the arguments in favor of ignoring clearly established law in at least some of the cases. I have never initiated or argued a contempt proceeding for anyone to Show Cause why they should not be held in contempt, but I have seen judges take that step. This might be the occasion for a Show Cause proceeding or proceedings, now.

Judges are not the only ones who can call wayward lawyers to account. There is certainly room for Bar Associations to consider the conduct of some of their members here. I have served on a Grievance Committee and we encountered conduct far less noteworthy than some of the government lawyers’ conduct that has been on display in the past 25 days. The truth of it is instead that there is a seeming vacuum where Bar Associations should be, but are not. Perhaps not as yet.

In addition to Ethical Rules, lawyers are bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 which basically means that lawyers are liable to sanctions if they file or pursue claims or defenses that are basically frivolous or made in bad faith. They may also be subject to State anti-SLAPP or anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation laws, although as I say these laws are State laws and their application to lawyers in federal litigation may or may not be problematical, I just don't know. (Anti-SLAPP laws are a protection in many States against being sued in meritless lawsuits for no other reason than causing you to have to spend your money on defense fees and costs.)

I am advocating for Due Process. An Inquisition is not a good response to a coup in my judgment. I would not deny Due Process even to those who would deny Due Process to everyone else.

Even the current government lawyers.

As I understand it, many of the current government lawyers were not employed by the federal government until some three weeks ago, and there are not very many professional practicing lawyers left in the Department of Justice or in U.S. Attorneys' Offices at the time that these words are written.

But even the current government lawyers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to why they are conducting themselves as they are. That is the point of one possible remedy for a federal government and the lawyers it retains to defy Court Orders.

Thanks for reading Claims and Issues! I first published this article on Substack on Valentine's Day 2025. 

P.S. on Saturday, February 15, 2025:

Here are two letters I want to make available to you to read.  One is the letter that U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon sent to the current Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, before Ms. Sassoon resigned.  Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag  Ms. Sassoon sent this letter before she resigned because she would not file a motion to dismiss the pending indictment against the N.Y.C. Mayor.  A motion has since been filed, asking for "leave of  Court" to dismiss the charges.  The judge should review this eight-page letter before taking any action.  Some say that this letter is written like a pleading, ready to be filed in court.  The judge would benefit from a reading of this letter in any event.  We as a country benefit from Ms. Sassoon's courage and integrity.

The other letter I am making available for you to read immediately is the enormously well-written resignation EMail letter of Haagen Scotten, Assistant U.S. Attorney, which he sent to one of the lawyers that lost the criminal case against his client in New York State Supreme Court, since promoted to Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States.  Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

A small part of Mr. Scotten's one-page EMail letter is worth reproducing here in full, in which he addressed the justification that dismissal of the charges against the N.Y.C. Mayor without prejudice means that the charges can be refiled if the Mayor does not support the current federal government's "policy objectives":

But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials in this way.  If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion.  But it was never going to be me.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

FLORIDA TOOK AIM AT KIDCARE. IT MISSED BADLY.

"Florida sued.  But it sued poorly."  These are the words of an Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Joint Editorial.

          Florida's lawsuit aimed to stop guidelines issued for KidCare, a health insurance program for children in need.  The guidelines were issued by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and this was the guidance:  If the parents miss a premium payment or payments, the insured child must remain insured until eligibility can be re-determined.

          Florida opposed that.  The Attorney General of Florida filed the lawsuit without talking to CMS first; she did not exhaust Florida's administrative remedies before she filed the lawsuit, which is lawyering 101.

          She also filed Florida's lawsuit before Florida paid even one cent.  The complaint she filed speculated that Florida could lose as much as $48.5 Million.  Not suing until you have an injury is lawyering 102.

          As the newspapers pointed out, this "works out to 3.3% of this year's $14.6 Billion budget surplus, in a $117 Billion budget."  Further, the joint editorial points out that Florida has set aside $450 Million in the current budget for E-Pass relief for drivers who would otherwise pay that money in tolls, an amount which is "nearly 10 times as much" as what the Attorney General speculated Florida would pay under the new KidCare rule.  The Joint Editorial is aptly titled, Why is Florida Hell-Bent on Stripping Children of Health Insurance?                     

          That's taking the Attorney General's "Florida Dreaming" at face value.  Let's go back to looking at her lawsuit.  It was premature and Florida had no standing to bring that lawsuit.  That is why a federal judge dismissed it the first chance he got.

 U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida where Florida's lawsuit was dismissed.

          The Attorney General wants to be the next Governor of Florida.  Her name is Ashley Moody.  This is her official portrait from the Department of Legal Affairs (Florida Attorney General) website:

Remember her.  She will take Florida places it never intended to go.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE HOW THAT WAS ACCIDENTAL ...."

John Lewis had it right when he said that Their Furor was an illegitimate president.  That was John Lewis's reason for not going to the 2017 Inauguration.  He was so right.

          They should not have let Their Furor anywhere near the Oval Office, but they did, and here we are.  Now we are hearing that he was so busy being president that he did not have time to commit crimes, no matter what the evidence shows.

          "He was President of the United States."  "He was running the country."  These are supposed to be reasons that he should not be convicted of his crimes.

          His lawyers argue to a jury that he should not be convicted of a crime, but they do not emphasize his innocence.  Instead, they emphasize that he was the "leader of the free world" at the time and so should not go to prison.

          What the Judge said when he heard the lawyer's improper argument to the jury (so improper that the lawyer did not try to defend it), applies to the entire situation we are in:  "It's hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MEMO TO SUSAN NECHELES: MEASURE TWICE, CROSS ONCE.

Carpenters' motto:  Measure once, cut twice.  Lawyers who cross-examine witnesses can learn from that motto.

I have read the trial transcript of Thursday's renewed cross-examination by Susan Necheles, Esquire of the witness Stormy Daniels.  Ms. Necheles' approach seems to have been written with blinders on, that Ms. Daniels worked in adult films, what Ms. Necheles called "porn," and so the jury should not believe Ms. Daniels.

          It was Melania who posted nude photos of herself on the Internet.  Not Stormy Daniels.

          It was Melania who reportedly came up with the description of the Hollywood Access tape as "locker room talk."  Not Stormy Daniels.

          It was not Melania that Their Furor summoned to his bedroom at a golf tournament while his bodyguard stood outside the one doorway.  It was Stormy Daniels.

          Remember:  Measure twice, cross once.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BOB MUELLER, SDNY, AND THE WAY THINGS REALLY ARE.

(Brennan Linsley / Associated Press)

 

I am reading Elie Honig's book, Untouchable / How Powerful People Get Away With It.  He started off his book with a "behind-the-scenes" story of how the Grievance Boy got off without being charged by what was once known as "the Sovereign District of New York," really "the Southern District of New York" or SDNY.

The story has already been told by Geoffrey Berman, who was the U.S. Attorney supposedly in charge of SDNY at the time.  He was appointed by the Grievance Boy and used to be Rudolph Giuliani's law partner.

Berman went into detail about how the SDNY fought Bill Barr and the Grievance Guy's other minions.  Honig comes more or less straight to the point:  SDNY caved.  The Grievance Guy was never charged.

Actually, Honig points out that SDNY caved twice.  The failure to charge was one.  The other time was when the SDNY filed a sentencing memo for the sentencing of Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty you will recall to the campaign violations Cohen did for the Grievance Guy.

In the sentencing memo, SDNY had the chance to put in all the details that Barr and the other minions had insisted be taken out of the indictment; SDNY did not ask Barr's permission on the sentencing memo as they did with the indictment.  They just went ahead and filed the sentencing memo without asking permission or running it by the minions in Washington, D.C., according to Honig.

When SDNY filed their sentencing memo, they put in a total of one (1) sentence about the Grievance Boy's involvement and they famously called the Grievance Boy "Individual Number 1."

That was all SDNY did.  Then they closed their case.

Once upon a time, the P.R. story behind SDNY was that it was independent and aggressive in pursuit of crime families and their heads.  That may have been true once, back in the day a long, long time before now.

We thought that Bob Mueller, the ex-Marine, the ex-Director of the FBI,  would protect us and more than that, protect our country.  We also thought that SDNY would prosecute crimes without fear or favor.  We thought they all cared more about our country than they did about their incomes, their job security, their career advancements.

We know better now.

The people who caved when we needed them to stand up and be independent, to be aggressive in the face of mob terror, took all that away.  When the people who work at SDNY caved, they made it the Supine District of New York.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

IT'S NOT HARD. COMPLIANCE IS NOT OPTIONAL FOR EVERYONE. ELSE?

When any new lawsuit is filed and the party filing it claims relief, lawyers and their clients are bound to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Compliance is not optional.

This includes The Former Guy and his new lawsuit that were discussed here the day after that new lawsuit was filed.  So that as many people as possible can understand all this, let me try to explain it here (and hopefully  without sounding too much like a lawyer, if I can).

The Rules of Civil Procedure that lawyers and their clients are bound to follow in federal court, whether they like it or not, include Rule 8(a):

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

To break it down into digestible pieces, this Rule applies to every party who states a claim for relief from a federal court, as TFG tried to do in his new case, Southern District of Florida No. 22-cv-81294-AM.  The first thing they have to do is write "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," which the "motion" that was filed in the new lawsuit just did not do. 

The first thing the judge ordered, two days after the motion was filed, was to state why the Court has jurisdiction.

The second thing that they all have to write is "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]"  In this new lawsuit, there are plenty of statements but not one of them is short and none of them is plain.

It is a press release that was filed in the Court file.

It does not show that the pleader is entitled to relief.  It misses by a mile.

Another thing that the judge ordered two days after the motion was filed was to state why the alleged owner of the searched premises is entitled to relief – and what relief is it, exactly, that he is requesting from her.

So, to say once again, it's on to Friday, August 26, 2022.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SEARCHING FOR JUDGES IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SEARCH WARRANT NO CONTEST.

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.